236/R236231.Pdf, PDF Format 687Kb

______

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Ref.: PL06S. 236231

Development: 973 No. residential units, commercial space, retail space, creche, community building, management suite, new road, 1,493 No. car parking spaces, pedestrian crossing.

PLANNING APPLICATION

Planning Authority: South Dublin County Council

Planning Authority Ref.: SD09A/0149

Applicant: Shelbourne Developments Ltd.

Type of Application: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Grant subject to conditions

APPEAL

Type of Appeal: First Party V. Conditions Third Party V. Decision

Appellants (Third Party): Chartridge Developments Ltd. Electricity Supply Board Councillor William Lavelle & Senator Frances Fitzgerald Councillor Derek Keating on behalf of Cllrs. Catriona Jones, Derek Keating, William Lavelle, Guss O’Connell & Eamon Tuffy Siobhan Donnelly and Others (Combined Griffeen Planning Action Group)

Observers: None.

INSPECTOR: Robert Speer

Date of Site Inspection : 30 August, 2010

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 1 of 93

______

1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

1.1 The proposed development site is located in the townland of Kishoge, South County Dublin, and is positioned between the existing established urban centres of Lucan to the north-west; Clondalkin to the south; the developing town centre of Liffey Valley to the north and the new community of Adamstown to the west. The site itself is bounded to the north and west by established low-density two-storey housing, to the south by the Dublin-Kildare railway line and to the east by the Outer Ring Road (ORR). It has a stated site area of 19.5 hectares, is irregularly shaped and is bisected by the Adamstown Link Road (ALR) which travels through the site in a northeast- southwest alignment. The lands are primarily greenfield and comprise a series of fields bounded by hedgerow and other vegetation. They are characterised by a gently undulating topography with ground levels at the eastern end of the site situated a notable level below the adjacent Outer Ring Road. A 220kV electricity supply line traverses the site with an existing ESB substation compound situated within the centre of the landbank although this is located outside of the application site boundary. A gas wayleave is positioned along the south-eastern boundary of the site.

1.2 The site has been divided into three development ‘zones’ with those lands to the south of the ALR identified as Zone A and the remaining lands to the north of the road designated as Zones B and C.

1.3 Zone A is essentially triangular in shape and is bounded by the rail line to the south, the ORR to the east and the ALR to the northwest. The recently completed new railway station at Kishoge is situated on the opposite side of the tracks to the southeast of Zone A, although this station is not yet in operation. Zone A generally comprises open greenfield lands with instances of stockpiling of aggregates etc. although a car parking area secured by palisade fencing has been constructed within the south-eastern corner of the site which is presently used for the storage of construction plant and machinery.

1.4 Zone B adjoins the established residential areas of Oldbridge and Tullyhall to the north and west and the ALR to the southeast and presently comprises undeveloped greenfield lands. Zone C is similarly undeveloped and is bounded to the north by Griffeen Avenue, to the west by the Oldbridge estate and to the east by the ORR. Notably, to the immediate west the site abuts the local Educate Together National School which is accessed from Griffeen Avenue.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 The proposed development consists of the construction of a mixed-use neighbourhood (Kishoge Cross) comprising residential, retail, commercial, crèche and community floorspace which represents the initial phase in the development of the Clonburris Eco-District as envisaged in the Clonburris Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme and Local Area Plan, 2008.

2.2 The proposal (Gross Floor Area: 151,505m 2), as initially submitted to the Planning Authority on 14 April, 2009, includes for the construction of the following:

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 2 of 93

______

• 973 No. residential units (55 No. one-bed apartments; 481 No. two-bed apartment and duplex apartment units; 276 No. three-bed apartment and duplex apartment units; 63 No. three-bed houses and 98 No. four-bedroom houses). • 6,089m 2 of commercial / office floorspace • 2,569m 2 of retail floorspace • 503m 2 of floorspace allocated for community use • A 408m 2 crèche facility • An 80m 2 management facility.

2.3 It also includes for the construction of a new road identified as Station Road which extends eastwards from the ALR to connect with the Fonthill Link Road to the east of the ORR via a new underbridge beneath same with retail space to be provided along the northern side of this bridge. The ALR will be widened to facilitate a new four-arm junction with Station Road to provide access to Zone B to the north with access points to Zone A to be provided off Station Road. Vehicular access to Zone C will be via the Griffeen Avenue roundabout whilst a pedestrian crossing over the ALR will be provided to link Zones B and C with Zone A (in addition to the signalised junction of Station Road / ALR).

2.4 In order to achieve the renewable energy requirements of the Local Area Plan it is also proposed to construct a centralised energy plant (523m 2) within the southern end of the site adjacent to the rail line which will house a series of Biomass boilers to burn biomass woodchips or wood pellets to provide hot water for a District Heating system. It is estimated that 4 No. deliveries per week of wood chip etc. will be required during the heating season with fewer deliveries in the summer. Modular natural gas boilers will provide 100% backup to the District Heating system and will also accommodate peak demand for hot water.

2.5 A total of 1,491 No. car parking spaces will be provided within the scheme at surface and basement level within which a 350 No. space park and ride facility is proposed. These spaces will generally be located at basement level in the vicinity of the train station and will operate on a dual usage basis with the commercial elements of the scheme. In addition, pending completion of the scheme, a temporary surface car park of 101 No. spaces will be provided alongside the rail line within Zone C to facilitate the use of the rail station at the early stage of construction ( N.B. Proposals for a secondary access to the rail station from the commercial core of the neighbourhood are to be provided on foot of a subsequent planning application to be made in association with CIE).

2.6 With regard to the overall design and layout of the scheme this is based on a series of perimeter blocks ranging from 2 to 8-storeys over basement in height set within a hierarchy of street types which are designed to ensure a high degree of permeability and connectivity throughout the scheme in addition to contributing to traffic management and reduced vehicle speeds. Each of the development zones has been provided with a dedicated neighbourhood park and provision has been made for pedestrian linkages to adjoining housing estates to the west and north. Cognisance has been taken of the need to protect the amenities of adjacent housing with two-storey units proposed to be located alongside these site boundaries. In general, building heights generally increase on travelling south-eastwards towards the railway station

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 3 of 93

______save for a number of examples where landmark or gateway buildings are proposed to be developed such as at the site entrance from Griffeen Avenue. Zones C and B are principally residential in character whereas the commercial element of the scheme is primarily concentrated in the southeastern corner of Zone A in the vicinity of Kishoge rail station.

2.7 Pursuant to a request for further information, on 3 December, 2009 the applicant submitted amended proposals which include a number of modifications to the original scheme. The overriding concept and layout of the proposed development remains unaltered and the principle components of the revised scheme can be summarised as follows:

• A reduction in the overall scale of the proposal to 898 No. residential units (64 No. one-bed apartments; 388 No. two-bed apartment and duplex apartment units; 295 No. three-bed apartment and duplex apartment units; 61 No. three- bed houses; 90 No. 4 bedroom houses). • 6,259m 2 of commercial floorspace • 2,516m 2 of retail floorspace • A 515m 2 community building • A 390m 2 crèche facility • A 140m 2 management facility • A total of 1,459 No. car parking spaces • A temporary surface car park of 106 No. spaces • The extension of the site boundary to include adjacent lands in the ownership of Castlethorn Construction in order to facilitate the development of the Station Link. • The extension of the site boundary to include for the proposed road improvement works at the junction of Griffeen Avenue with the Outer Ring Road.

2.8 Notable alterations to the scheme include the omission of the pedestrian / cycle links between the proposed development and the adjacent housing areas of Oldbridge Grove and Oldbridge View in addition to the redesign of Block B2 and the proposed ‘Park Link’ with the Oldbridge estate. Blocks A1 and A2 along Station Road have also been redesigned in order to reduce gaps in the building frontage whilst perhaps the most significant alterations in terms of building heights have been employed in Zone C where the perimeter blocks have generally been reduced in height although the six-storey element of Block C3 located at the entrance from Griffeen Avenue has been retained.

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

On Site: PA Ref. No. S00A/0293. Was granted on 29 June, 2000 permitting the Electricity Supply Board permission for a temporary 38kV overhead power line.

PA Ref. No. SD04A/0964 / ABP Ref. No. PL06S.211506. Was granted on appeal on 29 July, 2005 permitting Chartridge Developments Limited permission for the construction of the Adamstown Link Road linking the proposed development of

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 4 of 93

______

Adamstown in the west with the Outer Ring Road (Adamstown Roundabout) in the east, minor amendments to the boundary of the development permitted under Reg.Ref: S01A/0664, demolition of house and all associated works etc.

On Adjacent Sites: PA Ref. No. S97A/0092. Was granted on 29 May, 1997 permitting the Electricity Supply Board permission for an indoor 38 KV station, steel pylon and ancillary works at E.S.B. Site in the townland of Kishogue, Barony of Newcastle, Co. Dublin.

PA Ref. No. S01A/0615 / ABP Ref. No. PL06S. 129728. Was granted on appeal on 7 November, 2002 permitting the Electricity Supply Board permission to erect a 30m high free-standing communications mast supporting antennae and communication dishes with associated ground mounted equipment cabinets within a 2.4m high palisade compound at existing 38kV station, Kishogue, Balgaddy, Lucan, County Dublin.

PA Ref. No. SD07A/0798 / ABP Ref. No. PL 06S.227246. Was granted on appeal on 23 June, 2008 permitting ESB Telecoms Limited permission for the retention of the existing 30m high, free standing lattice communications structure, carrying antennae and communication dishes, with associated ground-mounted equipment cabinets, to be shared with third party operators, within a 2.4m high palisade compound, previously granted temporary permission under planning register reference number S01A/0615, appeal file number PL06S.129728, at Balgaddy 38kV substation, Tullyhall Rise, Lucan, County Dublin.

PA Ref. No. SD08A/0054. Was granted on 7 March, 2008 permitting The Minister of Education and Science permission for 1 No. two storey 16 classroom building with general purpose hall, support teaching spaces and ancillary accommodation with a total floor area of c.1000sq.m. The site works to the school grounds will consist of the provision of cycle storage, bin stores, ball courts, landscaping and boundary treatment and all other associated site development works. The works to the remainder of the site will consist of the provision of 19 car parking, drop-off and pick-up facilities and new access road including the provision of temporary road link to the existing Griffeen Avenue Roundabout. All on a site of c.0.88 hectares south of Griffeen Avenue, east of Oldbridge Walk, Lucan, Co. Dublin.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

4.1 Paragraph 10(b)(i) of Part 2 of Schedule 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 specifies the following class of development as necessitating an Environmental Impact Assessment:

‘Construction of more than 500 dwelling units’.

4.2 The subject proposal, as initially submitted to the Planning Authority, consists of the construction of 973 No. residential units in addition to various commercial and retail space etc. and, therefore, it necessitates the preparation of an EIS.

4.3 The Environmental Impact Statement which has accompanied the subject application provides a satisfactory description of the receiving environment, the

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 5 of 93

______proposed development, its impacts and proposed mitigation measures. It has been accompanied by a non-technical summary and includes the information required by Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and complies with Section 172 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and Article 94 of the Regulations.

5.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS AND DECISION

5.1.0 Decision: 5.1.1 Following the receipt of a response to a request for further information, on 5 February, 2010 the Planning Authority issued a notification of a decision to grant permission for the proposed development subject to 40 No. conditions. Several of these conditions are of a standardised format and relate to issues including external finishes, landscaping, hours of construction and public services; however, the following conditions are of note:

Condition No. 2 – Clarifies that a total of 898 No. dwelling units are permitted. Refers to the phasing of residential development and the provision of specified infrastructure etc. in accordance with the Local Area Plan. States that no dwellings are to be occupied prior to the opening of Kishoge Railway Station. Condition No. 3 – Refers to third party lands and the completion of the station link from Griffeen Avenue to Kishoge Station prior to the occupation of any dwelling in Zone C. Condition No. 4 – Specifies that the Station Link from Griffeen Avenue to Kishoge Station is to be completed and available for use prior to the occupation of any development within Zone ‘C’. Condition No. 6 – Requires the submission and approval of revised plans including the following: - Detailed cross-sections of street typologies including construction details, dimensions etc. - Proposals for the removal / relocation of parking spaces within identified visibility splays. - Provision of a temporary turning facility for delivery vehicles using the Station Road loading bay. - Proposals for an alternative emergency vehicular entrance to Zone A from the Adamstown Link Road. - A full signage strategy including speed limits, road names and parking control.

Condition No. 7 – Refers to external finishes. Condition No. 8 – Repetition of Condition No. 7. Condition No. 9 – Refers to surface finish materials (e.g. roads, pavements, cycleway etc.) Condition No. 10 – Refers to shop front signage with Part (c) of same specifying that signage shall not be internally illuminated. Condition No. 13 – Requires the submission of revised proposals for access to the basement car park of Block C5. Condition No. 14 - Requires the submission of revised proposals for the provision of secure bicycle facilities.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 6 of 93

______

Condition No. 15 – Requires the submission of a detailed Mobility and Parking Management Plan for approval. Condition No. 16 - Requires the submission of revised proposals allowing for the flexible use of buildings. Condition No. 17 – Refers to the submission of an Energy Management Plan. Condition No. 19 - Requires the submission of detailed drawings of the proposed attenuation ponds for Zone A in addition to information demonstrating that the proposed development will not increase the risk to the ESB substation from a 1 in 1,000 year storm event whilst the flood route for such an event should also be shown. In addition, an alternative surface water storage system is required as the proposed Stormcell measures as proposed are not considered to be acceptable. Condition No. 21 – Refers to water quality sampling. Condition No. 22 – Refers to the design of the proposed basement car parks including minimum heights, directional signage, lighting and demarcation of Park and Ride spaces and mobility impaired parking. Condition No. 23 – Refers to waste management including the locating of bring banks. Condition No. 27 – Refers to the need for a construction phasing plan within each zone of development whilst the phasing plan for Zone C is to include details for traffic management in the vicinity of the adjacent school. Condition No. 36 – Refers to a prohibition on satellite dishes or external telecommunications equipment on the front or side elevations of any building. Condition No. 37 – Requires the lodgement of a cash deposit / bond of €150,000 as security to ensure that in the event that additional capacity can be provided on a key junction where vehicular modal split exceeds stated targets and a junction upgrade at Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road is deemed necessary by the Local Authority. Condition No. 38 - Refers to a development contribution of €12,279,678. Condition No. 40 – Refers to a supplementary development contribution of €2,207,099 towards the Kildare Route Project.

5.2 Internal Reports: Housing: States that discussions have already been held between the Housing Dept., the Planning Dept. and the developer as regards compliance with Part V and recommends the inclusion of a condition in respect of Part V in any grant of permission.

Environmental Services: An initial report recommended that additional information be sought in respect of the foul and surface water drainage proposals.

Following the receipt of a response to a request for further information a further report was prepared which recommended that clarification be sought in respect of a number of items pertaining to surface water drainage including the applicants proposals to protect the ESB substation and storm water attenuation within Zone C.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 7 of 93

______

Roads: An initial report recommended that additional information be sought in respect of a number of items including basement parking etc., traffic calming measures, road construction details, signage and the identification of those areas to be offered for taking in charge. The report then proceeded to raise concerns with regard to the lack of reference in the application to Ireland’s Traffic Management Guidelines and recommended that additional information be sought in respect of a number of further items including a swept path analysis for the delivery truck route, the adequacy of the access route to the underground car park beneath Block A3, pedestrian permeability through the scheme, speed limit management and the provision of flares on Station Road westbound to accommodate right-hand turning movements.

Following the receipt of a response to a request for further information a further report was prepared which recommended the inclusion of a series of conditions in any grant of permission.

Environment: Recommends a series of conditions pertaining to the provision of adequate recycling facilities / bring banks.

Parks and Landscape Services: States that in principle there is no objection to the proposed development, however, it recommends that additional information be sought in respect of a number of items including water attenuation, the treatment of the retaining embankment at the Outer Ring Road, the visual impact of the proposed bridge construction, street tree planting, boundary treatment along the Adamstown Link Road and the provision of a linkage through to the adjoining Tullyhall development.

Following the receipt of a response to a request for further information a further report was prepared which sought to address remaining concerns by way of condition.

5.3 Prescribed Bodies / Other Consultees: Iarnrod Eireann: Recommends that due to the proximity of the proposed development to the Dublin-Cork railway line, where trains reach speeds in excess of 90mph, the developer meet with the Divisional Engineer’s Dept., prior to any decision being made on the application, in order to discuss the proposal. It was considered that this would ensure that the development would not interfere with the safe running of the railway during construction and on completion i.e. day to day running of the complex. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a grant of permission it was recommended that conditions be included pertaining to a variety of issues including the erection of a 2.4m high concrete block wall on the developer’s side of the existing boundary line, the prevention of discharge into railway property, the preservation of railway mounds and ditches and the provision / orientation of lighting etc.

Dublin Transportation Office: States that the DTO has previously expressed its support for the development objectives of the Clonburris SDZ Planning Scheme & LAP within which the subject development is located. Whilst it was considered that the proposed development was generally consistent with the LAP the following recommendations were made:

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 8 of 93

______

- Local Accessibility: The importance of providing a high level of accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists to key local destinations from within the development and from established residential areas to the north (the neighbourhood centre, Kishoge Station, allotments, local schools, bus-waiting areas etc.) was emphasised. The Clonburris SDZ Planning Scheme & LAP contain two indicative walking and cycling routes linking area north and south of the railway line and to the proposed ‘green’ strategic pedestrian cycle route along the Grand Canal. Whilst it was considered that one of these routes was reflected in the north- south pedestrian cycle southward, it was not clear how a further extension of this route was to be provided at its southern end.

In summary the DTO emphasised the importance of providing this cycle route, as: o A safe and direct link between established and proposed residential areas and key local destinations, and; o A link to the proposed ‘green’ pedestrian cycle route along the Grand Canal which may emerge as a strategic cycle route and local amenity.

In addition, it was considered that clarification was required on how walking and cycling access to Kishoge Station would be provided for across the proposed Station Road.

- Park and Ride: It was not considered clear why a 350 space park and ride facility was proposed to be provided as part of the scheme in light of the provision of a 400 space park and ride facility having already been committed to as part of the Kildare Route Project to the south of Kishoge Station. The two facilities combined would provide for 750 spaces, or more than double what would normally constitute a ‘local’ park and ride as defined in the DTO’s “Rail Park & Ride Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area”.

- District Centre Design: Following an examination of Drg. No. ST P0002 it was noted that the proposed alignment of Station Road (to the east of the ORR) is positioned further south than that indicated in the LAP which would appear to compromise the development of District Centre / Kishoge Station area as indicated in the Clonburris LAP SDZ planning scheme, which includes frontage development on both sides of the road. The justification for this alignment requires clarification.

- Road Network: Station Road: In its submission on the SDZ Planning Scheme, the DTO recommended that Station Road (a B1 road) ‘should be designed and manage to facilitate trips within the local area and to discourage non-local through traffic’. This recommendation is reiterated and the preferred use for this route would be to facilitate public transport, walking, cycling and access traffic only. The function and shape of this road should reflect this use.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 9 of 93

______

Outer Ring Road: In its submission on the SDZ Planning Scheme, the DTO stated that ‘although recognising the strategic function of the Outer Ring Road . . . the design . . . would impose a high level of severance on pedestrian and cyclists. In the case of the ORR, which appears to impose the highest level of severance, additional pedestrian and cycle links either side of and crossing the ORR need to be provided. The DTO recommends that the ORR design be examined locally, so that it properly takes into account the urban environment through which it will pass’. This recommendation is reiterated in the context of the subject application.

Department of Defence: No objection.

National Roads Authority: Requested that a hard copy of the Traffic and Transport Assessment contained in EIS be forwarded to the Authority. In the absence of the TTA the Authority is not in a position to provide observations on the subject proposal.

Health Service Executive / Environmental Health Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

5.4 Objections / Observations: A total of 50 No. submissions were made by various interested parties in respect of the subject application and I would refer the Board to the Planner’s Report for a summary of the principle contents of same.

6.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

6.1 Third Party: The grounds of appeal in the respective third party appeals are summarised as follows:

6.1.1 Chartridge Developments Ltd.: • In the interests of clarity Chartridge Developments Ltd. is the legal entity established by the consortium of landowners at the Adamstown Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) who in tandem with South Dublin County Council have taken responsibility for delivering the strategic public infrastructure relating to the Adamstown development. To date it has made a number of planning applications for developments that facilitate the overall development of the Adamstown lands, including public infrastructure. These include:

- The Adamstown Link Road - Primary Schools - Post-primary school - Strategic roads within the SDZ lands - Tobermaclugg Pumping Station - Adamstown Railway Station

• The subject lands are traversed by a specific roads objective contained in the South Dublin County Development Plan, 2004-2010 which is noted as being a

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 10 of 93

______

‘Roads Objective – 6 Year’. This is the ALR scheme. Policy T11 of the Plan seeks to implement the road objectives set out in the Six Year Road Programme and Table 13.6 lists all the road proposals for that period. Under the sub-heading ‘Regional Road / Route District Distributor’ is ‘Adamstown Link Road from ORR to SDZ lands’. • The Adamstown Link Road (ALR) is a strategic piece of infrastructure required for the future development of this entire area of the county, which includes the Kishoge Cross lands, and does not serve a single isolated development as suggested by the Council. In this respect it serves the Kishoge Cross lands by providing vehicular access and services which benefit the proposed development. • The subject lands were disposed of by South Dublin County Council to the applicant and it is submitted that the minutes of the Council meeting in December, 2006 (wherein the sale of the land was agreed) include an acknowledgement that the applicant (Shelbourne Development Ltd.) would contribute towards the cost of public infrastructure provided by others. In this respect, Item 15 Page 687, of the minutes states the following:

‘Shelbourne Development Limited agrees to contribute, on a pro rata basis with other developers / development land owners in the area, either by the provision of infrastructure / services or by financial payment, to the servicing or infrastructural enhancement of this land and other land in the area’.

• The ALR was constructed on foot of a grant of permission issued by the Board under ABP Ref. No. PL06S. 211506 and from the outset it was intended to be of benefit not just to the lands at Adamstown, but also the subject lands, then in control of South Dublin County Council. Specific provision was made within the design of the road to accommodate the development of the Kishoge Cross lands and during its construction additional works were undertaken (at the cost of the Local Authority) which included the provision of watermains to benefit the development of the Kishoge Cross lands. • The construction of the ALR scheme was undertaken by Chartridge Developments Ltd. (CDL) under licence to, and on behalf of, South Dublin County Council. To date the project has been funded by CDL with significant contributions towards the cost of the ALR being made by the Council. • Construction of the ALR commenced in 2005 with one half of the route opened as a haul road managed under CDL security in December, 2006. The road subsequently opened to the public during daylight hours only whilst still under site security arrangements in the summer of 2007 and opened to the public in the normal sense in September, 2008. At the time of the agreement (sale) between the Council and applicant, the ALR did not exist as a road open to the public and, therefore, it is reasonable to submit that the agreement to pay a pro rata contribution towards infrastructure benefiting the Kishoge Cross lands would also include for the ALR. • It is submitted that the Clonburris LAP acknowledges the ALR as a key piece of public infrastructure required to facilitate the development of the Kishoge Cross lands. Specifically, on page 92 of the Clonburris LAP the ALR is referred to as ‘Committed Infrastructure’ and also as ‘Proposed Infrastructure’. The ALR is also referred to as Objective M-07 in the LAP and the reliance of the proposed development on same is further evidenced throughout the Plan

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 11 of 93

______

including the requirement to develop two junctions on the ALR as shown on Map for Kishoge Cross.

Although the ALR is not itemised in the phasing plans for the Clonburris LAP this should not be construed as indicating that it is not a critical piece of infrastructure facilitating development in the area. Rather the ALR had already been constructed and was open to traffic when the LAP was completed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the phasing provisions include for junctions along the ALR which are referred to as Objective J.04 and relate to the development of Station Road West and the Station Link route to Griffeen Road. Accordingly, it is clear that the ALR facilitates and benefits the subject proposal.

• Having regard to the provisions of Sections 48(1) and 48(2)(c) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, it is submitted that the ALR is a piece of ‘public infrastructure’ as defined under Section 48 and that it benefits development in the area of the Planning Authority, including the subject lands, and has been provided by or on behalf of the Local Authority (regardless of other sources of funding for the infrastructure). On the basis that the ALR is not included in either the 2003 or 2010 Development Contributions Schemes, it is submitted that it is entirely appropriate for the applicant to be conditioned to contribute financially towards the cost of constructing the ALR being specific exceptional costs not covered by a Development Contribution Scheme which have been incurred by South Dublin County Council in respect of public infrastructure and facilities which benefit the proposed development. It is the intention of CDL to seek a re-imbursement from the Council in that sum although it is acknowledged that this is not a matter for this appeal • Pursuant to a request for further information issued by the Planning Authority the applicant engaged in discussions with CDL (the appellant) and it is submitted that Shelbourne Development Ltd. accepted that an apportionment of the costs of the construction of the ALR whereby it would pay a contribution towards same was fair and reasonable. Furthermore, it is submitted that the applicant agreed the methodology to be applied and the sum of money that resulted. This pro rata basis yielded a 9% figure of the cost to the applicant as the Adamstown lands have c. 10,000 No. dwellings planned whereas the subject proposal provides just under 1,000 No. dwellings. Since the lodgement of the additional information there has been no further contact with the appellant. • The applicants reference to the ALR most likely being in the charge of the Local Authority prior to any construction commencing on the proposed development is not considered to be of relevance to the subject appeal. The ALR is public infrastructure and it is appropriate that a development which benefits from same should contribute towards its cost (where not covered by a Development Contribution Scheme). • On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is invited to impose a condition requiring payment to the Council of a special financial contribution toward the provision of the ALR. • With regard to comments contained in the Planner’s Report that as the provision of the ALR is a phasing requirement of the Adamstown SDZ and not the Clonburris LAP the application of a special development contribution

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 12 of 93

______

towards same would not be appropriate, it is submitted that this fails to acknowledge that the ALR is an objective of the County Development Plan and that this ‘Regional Road / Route District Distributor’ is of wider benefit to the area generally. The Planner’s Report similarly fails to acknowledge that the proposed development is reliant on access from the ALR and that when the LAP was adopted in April, 2008 by that stage the ALR was open to traffic during daylight hours under the supervision of CDL. • It is considered that the Planning Officer is incorrect in stating that the ALR is not a requirement of the Clonburris LAP. It is clear from the details of ‘LAP.01 Kishoge Cross’ of the LAP and the Development / Phasing Strategy of that Plan that the ALR facilitates development in this area and is a prerequisite for development to occur. • In considering a special contribution under Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act, 200, as amended, the ‘Development Management Guidelines or Planning Authorities’ state that such a condition ‘must be amenable to implementation under the terms of section 48(12) of the Planning Act; therefore it is essential that the basis for the calculation of the contribution should be explained in the planning decision. This means it will be necessary to identify the nature / scope of works, the expenditure involved and the basis for the calculation, including how it is apportioned to a particular development’.

Having regard to the foregoing, the grounds of appeal have been accompanied by a series of drawings which detail the nature, extent and scope of the works involved in the construction of the ALR scheme in addition to a breakdown of the construction costs for same. The total overall of the construction of the ALR has been calculated as €12,378,226.32 and on a pro rata basis of 9% a total €1,114,040.37 should be apportioned to the proposed development by way of a special contribution.

6.1.2 Electricity Supply Board: • At the outset, the ESB is not objecting to the principle of development on the subject lands, however, it is submitted that the type of development to be located in the immediate vicinity of the ESB site must respect the highly vulnerable nature (to effects of flooding) of the substation, which is a critical piece of energy infrastructure with an approximate catchment of 20,000 customers. • Table 3.1 of ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management, Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ classifies essential infrastructure including electricity generating power stations and substations as ‘highly vulnerable development’ . Section 2.11 of the Guidelines also states that damage to electricity substations can result in long-term economic and social impacts beyond local communities.

Having regard to the foregoing, the ESB is concerned that the proposed location of the attenuation pond / storm cell storage facility adjacent to its substation could increase the flood risk to same.

• It is also submitted that the ESB is not satisfied that the potential flood risk of the aforementioned pond on the substation has been comprehensively assessed

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 13 of 93

______

by the Planning Authority. For example, it appears that the Planning Officer has determined that:

‘Given the additional information received from the applicant / developer and the conditions required by the Drainage Section of the County Council; it is suggested that the scheme poses no greater flooding risk than the existing situation’.

Due to the critical importance of the substation and its classification as ‘highly vulnerable’ it is considered that the potential flooding impact should have been more comprehensively assessed prior to any decision to grant permission.

• On the basis of the foregoing, and in the event of a grant of permission, the Board is requested to enshrine the following by way of condition:

- The relocation of the open pond / storm cell facility to an alternative location; and / or - In the event that a suitable alternative location cannot be identified that further mitigation measures (supplementary to those outlined in Condition No. 19) be put in place. These should include for the provision of a suitable embankment surrounding the substation in order to prevent water flowing onto the site, but without incurring any negative impact on surface water drainage from within the substation or surrounds that could lead to an increased risk of flooding; and - That the Local Authority take in charge the ponds, associated drainage system and any embankments as the security of the substation site becomes reliant on future maintenance and operation of the ponds.

• With regard to the relocated entrance to the 38kV substation, the road layout and building set back at this location allows adequate space for the ESB to carry out general maintenance and emergency repairs. The ESB has an obligation under licence from the Commission of Energy Regulation to respond to all faults within one hour and in order to meet these response times it requires 24-hour access to the fault location for emergency vehicles and cranes, including 16.6m long low loader vehicles. Emergency vehicles of this scale require a minimum turning circle radius of c.7m and the road widths proposed in the original application were not designed to accommodate this. Whilst it appears that this issue has been substantially addressed by way of the revised drawings lodged in response to the request for further information (as acknowledged in the Planner’s Report), the Planner proceeded to recommend the inclusion of a condition to give effect to same, but this was not attached to the grant of permission. Accordingly, in the interest of clarity, the Board is requested to attach a condition confirming the required increase in minimum corner radii with specific reference to the revised site plan (Drg. No. HJL-80- 0128 P ST 0002).

6.1.3 Councillor William Lavelle & Senator Frances Fitzgerald: • It is accepted that development will occur on the subject site and that the submitted proposal is broadly in line with the Clonburris Local Area Plan,

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 14 of 93

______

however, notwithstanding this compliance, it is considered that the proposal does not satisfy the basic criteria of sustainable and proper planning and development. • Section 5.9 of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Clonburris LAP states that ‘The surrounding road network is at capacity’ and at peak times it can take up to 20 minutes to drive from the Oldbridge estate to the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road roundabout. This traffic situation is elaborated on in a report prepared by the Roads Dept. of South Dublin County Council dated 12 October, 2009 which refers to CCTV footage and includes the comment that ‘By 08:30 all approaches to the junction are heavy with the exit from Griffeen Avenue queued as far as can be seen from the camera’. Accordingly, the appellant does not accept the contention contained in the Traffic & Transport section of the EIS that both the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road roundabout and the Griffeen Avenue / Outer Ring Road junction have spare capacity. • There are serious concerns as regards the validity of the traffic & transport assessment and it is submitted that the traffic impact of the proposal has been seriously understated. • The ARCADY analysis of the roundabouts was undertaken on 28 August, 2008 and thus does not take into account school-time peak-hour traffic congestion. Despite a request by the Planning Authority for a new traffic survey to be conducted outside of school holidays the applicant did not accede to same. • Section 14.6.1.1 of the EIS states that ‘it was agreed with SDCC that the TTA would be undertaken in accordance with the assumptions made in the Clonburris LAP/SDZ transport assessment undertaken by JMP Consulting Transport Assessment’. Paragraph 3.1.2 of the Inspector’s Report prepared for the appeal relating to the Adamstown SDZ states that ‘it must be emphasised that transportation modelling is only a tool to assist in the decision making process. It is unlikely to completely reflect reality upon implementation’ .

It is submitted that in the assessment of individual site-specific planning applications Traffic & Transport Assessments are more than just a ‘tool to assist in the decision making process’. In the subject case the TTA comprises a critical element of the EIS in assessing the traffic impact of the proposal, a key concern as the SEA for the Clonburris LAP refers to the surrounding road network as being at capacity. Having regard to the foregoing, and considering the requirements of both the EPA and the NRA as regards the information to be contained in an EIS and a TTA, it is submitted that the assumptions on generation rates and modal split carried-over from the original JMP Consulting Transport Assessment cannot be considered reasonable (in particular the assumption of 67% sustainable transport usage), given the context of the receiving environment, nor are the assumptions substantiated in sufficient detail in the EIS as required by Section 5.2(ii) of the NRA Guidelines. Accordingly, the appellant has no confidence in the validity of the conclusions reached based on the assumptions of the JMP Consulting Transport Assessment.

• It is considered that a number of the assertions contained in the EIS relating to estimated trip generation and traffic flow are unrealistic and thereby undermine the robustness and accuracy of the TTA:

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 15 of 93

______

• The EIS does not contain any assessment of the ‘worst case’ impact and only refers to a ‘pessimistic scenario’. In the subject case, a worst-case scenario would involve a situation where the envisaged modal split is not achieved and therefore a much larger volume of cars seek to use Griffeen Avenue and the Outer Ring Road. Given the high possibility of such a scenario, it is submitted that a ‘worst-case’ impact assessment should have been required as part of the EIS in accordance with EPA guidance. • It is submitted that the modal split used in the analysis of 56 departures from 313 residential units with 404 parking spaces between the hours of 08:00 and 09:00 seems very optimistic. Even with good public transport provision by rail and bus it would be expected that many of the commuters resident in the development would not work within the limited corridors of the Bus and Rail network. Accordingly, the analysis should have been less optimistic in terms of assessing the potential traffic impact and a comparison with actual car usage in a similar area (e.g. Adamstown) served by comparable parking and public transport would have been appropriate. Anecdotal evidence strongly shows that public transport usage from Adamstown is very low, almost negligible. • The applicants response to the request for further information issued by the Planning Authority did not include a new traffic survey prepared outside of the school-holiday period and simply comprised a LINSIG analysis based on a lengthening of the traffic light cycle. It is submitted that this response is unsatisfactory and that the lengthening of the traffic light signal should be a measure of last resort. The response fails to meaningfully address the real and justifiable concern that ‘the proposed improvement at the junction of Griffeen Avenue and the Outer Ring Road fail to demonstrate that the junction will provide adequate capacity to cater for the proposed development’ . • The EIS was carried out before the additional information was submitted and therefore it does not take into account the issues raised and the resulting changes. Furthermore, the analysis of traffic flow at the Griffeen Avenue / Road Roundabout does not consider the pedestrian crossing proposed in the revised layout submitted as part of the further information. • The Planner’s assessment contained in the ‘Record of Executive Business and Manager’s Order’ states that ‘traffic on Griffeen Avenue is still considered as problematic given the response given by the applicant / developer’ and ‘this matter will be addressed by way of condition to ensure the safe and efficient operation of Griffeen Avenue as a result of the development as amended’ , however, no such condition was included in the grant of permission. • The assumption of 67% sustainable transport usage is underpinned by the planned provision of a Mobility Manager whose role is described as including

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 16 of 93

______

coordinating car pools and preparing personalised traffic management plans. Whilst Management Mobility Plans may operate successfully in the context of the workplace, it is submitted that the proposal for an MMP within a residential neighbourhood is too aspirational and untested in an Irish setting. It is not accepted that the modal-shift benefits of an MMP are guaranteed to succeed simply on the basis of the commitments given in the planning application. Accordingly, the proposed MMP may not result in less car usage. • The Board is requested to review the MMP concept and to examine if the envisaged modal-shift benefits can be relied upon and to ensure that safeguards are in place to mitigate the potential failure or ineffectiveness of the MMP concept. • It is considered that the proposal to construct a 6-storey landmark building as part of Block C2 at the Griffeen roundabout in close proximity to the Moy Glas, Griffeen Glen and Oldbridge housing estates is unacceptable. The sudden transition from 2-storey to 6-storey would create a disjointed townscape and would represent very poor urban design contrary to the policy of ‘integration’ set out in Section 11.2.iv of the County Development Plan, 2004. • Section 5.3 of the ‘Guidelines for Planning Authorities, Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ states that ‘particular sensitivity is required in relation to the design and location of apartment blocks which are higher than existing residential development. As a general rule, where taller buildings are acceptable in principle, buildings heights should generally taper down towards the boundaries of a site within an established residential area’ . • The Board’s attention is drawn to Section 11.8.2 of the inspector’s report prepared in respect of the Adamstown SDZ (ABP Ref. No. PL06ZD.2001) with regard to the use of landmark buildings and buildings heights. It is considered that the nearby Newcastle Road frontage of the Adamstown SDZ provides an appropriate precedent with the tallest building along this key landmark only 4-storeys in height. • It is considered that the guidance contained in the ‘Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ in addition to the Board’s previously accepted precedent relating to the Newcastle Road frontage of the Adamstown SDZ, provide a clear justification for the Board to overrule the provisions of the LAP and to require a reduction in the height of the landmark 6-storey landmark building which forms part of Block C2 at the Griffeen roundabout. • A strong urban edge to both Griffeen Avenue and the Outer Ring Road could still be achieved with a high-level of architectural design which would be more appropriate to the setting. • With regard to the design change specified by Item No. 8 of the request for further information as issued by the Planning Authority, which required the creation of a new park link between the existing green area at Oldbridge Court / Rosberry Park and the proposed development, whilst the LAP provides for the creation of new pedestrian links between the subject site and existing estates, it is submitted that these linkages will be of serious detriment to the residents of those estates.

It is considered that the creation of the aforementioned link will most likely result in non-residents parking within the existing estates in order to access the

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 17 of 93

______

proposed development and the nearby train station by foot. A similar scenario has developed in an estate in Leixlip close to the Arrow rail line and in areas close to stops on the Luas Green Line. The use of pay-parking within the proposed development will encourage non-residents to avail of the free parking within the closest and more accessible areas of the Oldbridge and Rosberry estates.

• Oldbridge Court was designed as a ‘home zone’ with no footpaths and there are concerns that this cul-de-sac could be used as a turning and drop-off point which would pose a safety risk and nuisance to both local residents and pedestrians who seek to use the proposed link. • Whilst the proposed link is included within the LAP, the overriding question of securing the orderly planning of the area must also be considered and in this respect Board should overrule this aspect of the LAP and omit the proposed link. In the event that the Board is minded to retain the proposed link it should consider modifying the proposal to address the concerns of local residents such as through the provision of a turning area, footpaths etc. • There are concerns that the submitted proposal does not provide sufficient parkland for the use of existing residents of South Lucan and / or the future residents of Clonburris. The submitted plans give the impression of a ‘concrete jungle’ with the only open space comprising 3 No. small residential squares and that area to be used as allotments sited beneath the high-tension power lines which traverse the site. • The Board’s attention is drawn to the request for further information issued in respect of PA Ref. No. SD05A/0274 which stated that ‘ The public open space provided in the eastern corner of the site is located beneath power lines and will not be a usable open space’ . Accordingly, it is submitted that the Planning Authority has demonstrated a significant inconsistency in failing to apply a similar position as regards the subject application. • In view of the precedent set by PA Ref. No. SD05A/0274 those areas located beneath the power lines should be excluded from the calculation of the required open space provision. • In the interest of public health and visual amenity, the developer and the ESB should cover the costs of burying the power lines as part of the proposed development.

6.1.4 Councillor Derek Keating on behalf of Cllrs. Catriona Jones, Derek Keating, William Lavelle, Guss O’Connell & Eamon Tuffy: • Throughout the subject application, ‘early 2010’ is referenced as the opening date of Kishoge Station, however, correspondence received from Iarnrod Eireann states that whilst the Kildare Route Project will deliver capacity to cater for future growth on the Commuter and Intercity services, due to the national economic situation, demands levels have actually reduced and, therefore, upon completion of the two new lines, Iarnrod Eireann is taking the opportunity to renew the existing track with these works to be completed by late 2010. The correspondence proceeds to state that Kishoge Station was included in Iarnrod Eireann’s plans on the basis of extensive development occurring in the surrounding area, however, due to the economic downturn none of that development has materialised to date, although the station

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 18 of 93

______

infrastructure has been constructed and can be opened once development in the area resumes.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is requested to ensure that any grant of permission is preceded by written clarification from Iarnrod Eireann on the specific level of development considered sufficient to open Kishoge Station in order to avoid the partial development of the Clonburris LAP / SDZ lands without access to rail transport.

• A Mobility Management Plan was provided as part of the subject application and Condition No. 15 as imposed by the Planning Authority requires the details of a Mobility and Parking Management Plan to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority prior to the marketing, sale or occupation of any of the proposed development. It is submitted that details of this MMP should be finalised before any grant of permission or at least prior to the commencement of the development in order to safeguard against ad-hoc transport related management arrangements. • The Board is requested to review the holistic benefits of locating an amenity area directly beneath 220kV power lines and the possibility that a potential hindrance to the site layout, density etc. was accommodated at the expense of devaluing the contribution of green amenity areas. Accordingly, the Board should consider whether this public open space ‘can have a positive impact on physical and mental well being as it provides spaces to meet, interact, exercise and relax’ as required by Section 4.15 of the document ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’. • The Board is referred to a previous decision made by the Planning Authority in respect of PA Ref. No. SD05A/0274 which concerned a proposal on lands adjacent to the subject site which are also traversed by the same system of pylons and overhead power lines. Item No. 7 of Decision Order No. 1195 stated that ‘It has not been adequately demonstrated that an acceptable quality of useable Public Open Space . . . has been provided. The public open space proposed in the eastern corner of the site is located underneath power lines, and will not be useable open space. Tree planting at this location will not be possible due to height restrictions’. Accordingly, it is submitted that the subject proposal fails to adhere to the Planning Authority’s previously stated position as regards an ‘acceptable quality of useable open space’ . • Concerns raised by the ESB in relation to existing Broadband, 2G and 3G service provision within the site, and the impact of the proposed development on same, have not been addressed. • The Board is requested evaluate the effort undertaken by the applicant to accommodate a new population of c. 2,800 persons within the existing community infrastructure and to question why facilities such as the Clondalkin and Lucan libraries, which are located a significant distance from the site, are listed in the EIS as existing facilities. • It is submitted that the building heights above 4-storeys do not take adequate cognisance of the existing built environment and, in particular, the appellants refute the necessity for the heights of landmark buildings that alter the West Dublin skyline so drastically. It is questioned whether a ‘hotch-potch’ of low and high-density developments or a more creative solution that responds to the sensitivities of the receiving environment is desirable.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 19 of 93

______

• Current planning policy is underpinned by socio-economic conditions and growth projections of a period that has since passed and do not necessarily reflect future growth trends. Accordingly, the Board is requested to consider how the national economy has altered the housing market in terms of both demand and value and long-term development conditions unforeseen in planning policy.

6.1.5 Combined Griffeen Planning Action Group: • The subject site was disposed of by South Dublin County Council to the applicant on foot of a ‘Proposed Exchange of Lands and Development Proposal’ approved at the Council Meeting of 13 November, 2006. It was a condition of this land-swap agreement that:

‘Shelbourne Development Ltd. . . . must apply for planning permission to build at least 300 residential units on Plot A. If planning permission for at least 300 residential units is not achieved then the Council will pay Shelbourne Development Ltd. the sum of €76,500 for each unit between the number achieved (of less than 300) and the figure of 300 units’.

The terms of this land-swap agreement have been marred in local controversy and whilst the integrity of the Planning Authority is not questioned an independent assessment of the application by the Board is welcomed.

• It is accepted that development will occur on the subject site and that the submitted proposal is broadly in line with the Clonburris Local Area Plan, however, notwithstanding this compliance, it is considered that the proposal does not satisfy the basic criteria of sustainable and proper planning and development. • Section 5.9 of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Clonburris LAP states that ‘The surrounding road network is at capacity’ and at peak times it can take up to 20 minutes to drive from the Oldbridge estate to the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road roundabout. This traffic situation is elaborated on in a report prepared by the Roads Dept. of South Dublin County Council dated 12 October, 2009 which refers to CCTV footage and includes the comment that ‘By 08:30 all approaches to the junction are heavy with the exit from Griffeen Avenue queued as far as can be seen from the camera’ . Accordingly, the appellant does not accept the contention contained in the Traffic & Transport section of the EIS that both the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road roundabout and the Griffeen Avenue / Outer Ring Road junction have spare capacity. • There are serious concerns as regards the validity of the traffic & transport assessment and it is submitted that the traffic impact of the proposal has been seriously understated. • The submitted traffic count indicates a significant peak within the 1-hour measuring period between 08:15 hours and 08:45 hours and the analysis supplied does not appear to take this peak into account. • The analysis of the traffic flow at the Griffeen Avenue / Road Roundabout does not appear to take account of the existing pedestrian warden crossing point for the Griffeen Valley Educate Together NS or the pedestrian crossing proposed in the revised site layout submitted as further information.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 20 of 93

______

• The ARCADY analysis of the roundabouts was undertaken on 28 August, 2008 and thus does not take into account school-time peak-hour traffic congestion. Despite a request by the Planning Authority for a new traffic survey to be conducted outside of school holidays the applicant did not accede to same. • Section 14.6.1.1 of the EIS states that ‘it was agreed with SDCC that the TTA would be undertaken in accordance with the assumptions made in the Clonburris LAP/SDZ transport assessment undertaken by JMP Consulting Transport Assessment’. Paragraph 3.1.2 of the Inspector’s Report prepared for the appeal relating to the Adamstown SDZ states that ‘it must be emphasised that transportation modelling is only a tool to assist in the decision making process. It is unlikely to completely reflect reality upon implementation’ .

- Fig. 14.2 which refers to 2008 AM peak hour indicates c.1,500 car movements on Griffeen Roundabout, however, Fig. 14.14 for 2021 AM peak hour estimates only c.1,600 movements. This is considered to represent a negligible and unrealistic increase. - Fig. 14.2 also indicates that 819 cars use the Griffeen Avenue / ORR traffic lights coming from Griffeen Avenue, however, Fig. 14.14 estimates 665 No. cars using the lights in the same direction i.e. a significant reduction despite substantial additional development. This is not realistic. - The trip generation rates for the then proposed, but now existing Lucan East Educate Together School are considered to be unrealistic. The submitted figures assume 30 No. arrivals and 3 No. departures between 08:00 and 09:00 hours, and assuming that the difference between cars in and cars out is accounted for by school staff, this implies that of 480 No. pupils only three are left to school by car. This assumption may have been made on the basis that as the school would serve the Kishoge and immediately adjacent areas that pupils would not arrive by car. In reality, the school is now open and the development of Kishoge has yet to commence whilst all pupils currently

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 21 of 93

______

attending the school will continue to do so with a large percentage of same arriving by car. - The model (prepared in 2008) states that in 2011, with the development in place, the Griffeen Avenue / ORR junction will be operating in the AM peak hour with a Degree of Saturation of 99.7% which would equate to ‘operating close to capacity with some (but not significant) queuing and delays resulting’ . Having regard to current traffic levels in the area, it is submitted that existing experiences of queuing and delays should be considered as ‘significant’ and therefore the model is either based on incorrect assumptions or is flawed.

• The EIS does not contain any assessment of the ‘worst case’ impact and only refers to a ‘pessimistic scenario’. In the subject case, a worst-case scenario would involve a situation where the envisaged modal split is not achieved and therefore a much larger volume of cars seek to use Griffeen Avenue and the Outer Ring Road. Given the high possibility of such a scenario, it is submitted that a ‘worst-case’ impact assessment should have been required as part of the EIS in accordance with EPA guidance. • It is submitted that the modal split used in the analysis of 56 departures from 313 residential units with 404 parking spaces between the hours of 08:00 and 09:00 seems very optimistic. Even with good public transport provision by rail and bus it would be expected that many of the commuters resident in the development would not work within the limited corridors of the Bus and Rail network. The proposed development will have very good connectivity along the ORR with the employment centres of Grangecastle / Kilcarbery and Citywest / Magna and along the M50, but with no significant public transport links. It was this connectivity that was used to justify the construction of the ORR and therefore it is unrealistic to assume that only a small percentage of the proposed residents will use this road. Accordingly, the submitted analysis should have been less optimistic in terms of assessing the potential traffic impact and a comparison with actual car usage in a similar area (e.g. Adamstown) served by comparable parking and public transport would have been appropriate. Anecdotal evidence strongly shows that public transport usage from Adamstown is very low, almost negligible. • The submitted EIS was prepared in respect of the original scheme, however, the proposal as granted permission was significantly altered pursuant to a request for further information and, therefore, it is submitted that the subject EIS is invalid as it does not relate to the scheme as granted and thus the developer is in breach of the EIA Directive etc. In this respect it is considered that the Planning Authority has erred in law by granting permission for a scheme without requiring the submission of a new EIS. • The applicants response to the request for further information issued by the Planning Authority did not include a new traffic survey prepared outside of the school-holiday period and simply comprised a LINSIG analysis based on a lengthening of the traffic light cycle. It is submitted that this response is unsatisfactory and that the lengthening of the traffic light signal should be a measure of last resort. The response fails to meaningfully address the real and justifiable concern that ‘the proposed improvement at the junction of Griffeen Avenue and the Outer Ring Road fail to demonstrate that the junction will provide adequate capacity to cater for the proposed development’ .

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 22 of 93

______

• The EIS was carried out before the additional information was submitted and therefore it does not take into account the issues raised and the resulting changes. Furthermore, the analysis of traffic flow at the Griffeen Avenue / Road Roundabout does not consider the pedestrian crossing proposed in the revised layout submitted as part of the further information. • Section 15 of the ‘Record of Executive Business and Manager’s Order’ states that ‘traffic on Griffeen Avenue is still considered as problematic given the response given by the applicant / developer’ and ‘this matter will be addressed by way of condition to ensure the safe and efficient operation of Griffeen Avenue as a result of the development as amended’ , however, no such condition was included in the grant of permission. • The assumption of 67% sustainable transport usage is underpinned by the planned provision of a Mobility Manager whose role is described as including coordinating car pools and preparing personalised traffic management plans. Whilst Management Mobility Plans may operate successfully in the context of the workplace, it is submitted that the proposal for an MMP within a residential neighbourhood is too aspirational and untested in an Irish setting. It is not accepted that the modal-shift benefits of an MMP are guaranteed to succeed simply on the basis of the commitments given in the planning application. Accordingly, the proposed MMP may not result in less car usage. • The Board is requested to review the MMP concept and to examine if the envisaged modal-shift benefits can be relied upon and to ensure that safeguards are in place to mitigate the potential failure or ineffectiveness of the MMP concept. • It is considered that the proposal to construct a 6-storey landmark building as part of Block C2 at the Griffeen roundabout in close proximity to the Moy Glas, Griffeen Glen and Oldbridge housing estates is unacceptable. The sudden transition from 2-storey to 6-storey would create a disjointed townscape and would represent very poor urban design contrary to the policy of ‘integration’ set out in Section 11.2.iv of the County Development Plan, 2004. • It is questioned whether a ‘hotch-potch’ of low and high density developments or a more creative solution that responds to the sensitivities of the receiving environment is desirable. • Section 5.3 of the ‘Guidelines for Planning Authorities, Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ states that ‘particular sensitivity is required in relation to the design and location of apartment blocks which are higher than existing residential development. As a general rule, where taller buildings are acceptable in principle, buildings heights should generally taper down towards the boundaries of a site within an established residential area’ . • The Board’s attention is drawn to Section 11.8.2 of the inspector’s report prepared in respect of the Adamstown SDZ (ABP Ref. No. PL06ZD.2001) with regard to the use of landmark buildings and buildings heights. It is considered that the nearby Newcastle Road frontage of the Adamstown SDZ provides an appropriate precedent with the tallest building along this key landmark only 4-storeys in height. • It is considered that the guidance contained in the ‘Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ in addition to the Board’s previously accepted precedent relating to the Newcastle Road frontage of the Adamstown SDZ, provide a clear justification PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 23 of 93

______

for the Board to overrule the provisions of the LAP and to require a reduction in the height of the landmark 6-storey landmark building which forms part of Block C2 at the Griffeen roundabout. • A strong urban edge to both Griffeen Avenue and the Outer Ring Road could still be achieved with a high-level of architectural design which would be more appropriate to the setting. • With regard to the design change specified by Item No. 8 of the request for further information as issued by the Planning Authority, which required the creation of a new park link between the existing green area at Oldbridge Court / Rosberry Park and the proposed development, whilst the LAP provides for the creation of new pedestrian links between the subject site and existing estates, it is submitted that these linkages will be of serious detriment to the residents of those estates.

It is considered that the creation of the aforementioned link will most likely result in non-residents parking within the existing estates in order to access the proposed development and the nearby train station by foot. A similar scenario has developed in an estate in Leixlip close to the Arrow rail line and in areas close to stops on the Luas Green Line. The use of pay-parking within the proposed development will encourage non-residents to avail of the free parking within the closest and more accessible areas of the Oldbridge and Rosberry estates.

• Oldbridge Court was designed as a ‘home zone’ with no footpaths and there are concerns that this cul-de-sac could be used as a turning and drop-off point which would pose a safety risk and nuisance to both local residents and pedestrians who seek to use the proposed link. • Whilst the proposed link is included within the LAP, the overriding question of securing the orderly planning of the area must also be considered and in this respect Board should overrule this aspect of the LAP and omit the proposed link. In the event that the Board is minded to retain the proposed link it should consider modifying the proposal to address the concerns of local residents such as through the provision of a turning area, footpaths etc. • There are concerns that the submitted proposal does not provide sufficient parkland for the use of existing residents of South Lucan and / or the future residents of Clonburris. The submitted plans give the impression of a ‘concrete jungle’ with the only open space comprising 3 No. small residential squares and that area including allotments sited beneath the high-tension power lines which traverse the site. • The Board is requested to review the holistic benefits of locating an amenity area and allotments directly beneath 220kV power lines and the possibility that a potential hindrance to the site layout, density etc. was accommodated at the expense of devaluing the contribution of green amenity areas. • The Board should consider whether this public open space ‘can have a positive impact on physical and mental well being as it provides spaces to meet, interact, exercise and relax’ as required by Section 4.15 of the document ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’. • The Board is referred to a previous decision made by the Planning Authority in respect of PA Ref. No. SD05A/0274 which concerned a proposal on adjacent lands. Item No. 7 of further information request stated that The public

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 24 of 93

______

open space proposed in the eastern corner of the site is located underneath power lines and will not be useable open space’. Accordingly, in line with this precedent those areas sited beneath the existing power lines in the subject proposal should be excluded from the open space provision. • In the event of a grant of permission, the proposed allotments should be sited outside of the pylon wayleave. • Ideally, in the interests of public health and visual amenity, the developer and the ESB should cover the costs of burying the high-tension power lines as part of the proposed development. • Previous concerns raised by the Tullyhall Residents Association with regard to flood risk and, in particular, the implications for residences in the Tullyhall Rise estate should the attenuation pond adjacent to the boundary wall with same fail to contain a significant flood event, have not been addressed in the Manager’s Report. • The ESB has stated that it has concerns regarding the effectiveness of the attenuation pond sited adjacent to its property. • It is considered that the attenuation pond adjacent to the boundary wall with the Tullyhall Rise estate should be relocated away from this boundary and the flood scheme redesigned so that any potential breach of the pond does not result in the flooding of existing or proposed residences.

6.2 First Party:

This first party appeal has been lodged in respect of Condition Nos. 10, 37, 38 & 40. The grounds of appeal are summarised as follows:

Condition No. 10:- • It is considered that Condition No. 10(c), which states that no external sign in the complex is to be internally illuminated, is overly restrictive and that such a blanket ban on a particular form of signage restricts the diversity, vitality and vibrancy of the future neighbourhood centre. • The merits of each sign should be the subject of individual assessment carried out by the Planning Authority in the context of Condition No. 10(a).

Condition No. 37:- • The Board’s attention is drawn to Condition No. 39 which requires the developer to lodge a bond in respect of the entire development in order ‘ to secure the provision and satisfactory completion and maintenance to taking- in-charge standard of roads, footpaths, sewers, watermains, drains, public lighting, open spaces and other services required in connection with the development’. Condition No. 37 requires the developer to lodge an additional bond in respect of the upgrading of the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road junction, however, it is submitted that such a bond is unnecessary as the works would be included in the aforementioned overall development bond and, therefore, the Board is requested to remove this condition.

Condition No. 38:- N.B. This condition is being appealed pursuant to Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000:

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 25 of 93

______

• The Planning Authority has calculated the development contributions required by the proposed development as €12,279,678 as follows:

Applicable Area Applicable Levy Cost (€) (m 2) (€/m 2) Residential 88,043.1 €120 €10,565,172 Commercial 9,229 €111 €1,024,419 Car park 12,434 50% of €111 €690,087 Total: €12,279,678

In accordance with the terms of the South Dublin County Council Development Contribution Scheme 2010-2017, the following categories of development are exempt from the requirement to pay development contributions:

- Social & Affordable housing units - Childcare facilities - 50% reduction for non-residential non-surface car parking

Having regard to the foregoing, it is submitted that the correct development contributions applicable to the proposed development (prior to the inclusion of an appropriate reduction in lieu of the extraordinary levels of additional infrastructure being provided by the developer as set out elsewhere in the grounds of appeal) are as follows:

Applicable Area Applicable Levy Cost (€) (m 2) (€/m 2) Residential 64,756.80 €120 €7,769,616 Commercial 8,775 €111 €974,025 Car park 5250 50% of €111 €291,375 Total: €9,035,016

• At the request of officials of the Planning Authority the proposed development incorporates several extraordinary items of additional infrastructure which the applicant agreed to include on the basis that an appropriate reduction in the development contributions would be applied to the site.

At a meeting held on 29 July, 2008 Planning Authority officials advised that the following elements of additional public infrastructure required as part of the Local Area Plan could be considered by the Council for a reduction in development contributions:

- Underbridge construction - Station Road West - Increased size of drainage pipework to allow for later tie-in by adjacent landowners - 2 No. major junction upgrades on Adamstown Link Road. - Park Link & Crossing - Cycle and pedestrian provision across the train lines - Link to western platform PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 26 of 93

______

- Childcare provision - Community centre - Provision of a second station entrance to Kishoge Train Station

It is submitted that following subsequent meetings it was agreed that an application for a reduction in contributions should be included in any planning application for consideration by the Council as a determination could not be made in advance of any application, however, the subject decision to grant permission contains no recognition or process by which such a reduction might take place.

It is submitted that the contributions sought under Condition No. 38 should be revised to reflect the extraordinary levels of additional public infrastructure that are to be provided by the applicant (most of which are outside the site boundary) or that a mechanism be put in place whereby the reductions can be agreed with the Council prior to the commencement of development.

• The Board is requested to amend Condition No. 38 in accordance with the figure set out above in respect of the overall development contributions applicable to the site and to direct the Council to enter into negotiations as regards the offsetting of some of the contribution costs against the additional infrastructure which has been requested.

Condition No. 40:- • This condition refers to the payment of a supplementary development contribution of €12,279,678 towards the funding of the Kildare Route Project. The Planning Authority has calculated this figure as follows:

Applicable Area Applicable Levy Cost (€) Residential 898 units €1,900/unit €1,706,200 Commercial 6,713m 2 €22.35/m 2 €150,035.55 Retail 2,516m 2 €29.00/m 2 €72,964 Car park 12,434m 2 €22.35/m 2 €277,899.90 Total: €2,201,099.45

In accordance with the terms of the South Dublin County Council Supplementary Development Contributions Scheme the following categories of development are exempt from the requirement to pay development contributions:

- Social & Affordable housing units - Primary Schools, Post Primary Schools, Voluntary non-profit-making clubs and similar community facilities / centres, youth centres, and similar non- commercial community related developments with a commercial element.

In addition, the Scheme makes no reference to costs to be levied for car parking (commercial or residential). Accordingly, it is contended that the correct development contributions applicable are as follows:

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 27 of 93

______

Applicable Area Applicable Levy Cost (€) Residential 698 units €1,900/unit €1,326,200 Commercial 6,399m 2 €22.35/m 2 €1430,017.65 Retail 2,516m 2 €29.00/m 2 €72,964 Total: €1,542,235.65

• It was a requirement of the Planning Authority for the subject site that a second entrance to Kishoge train station be included on the eastern side of the underbridge, adjacent to the application site but on lands owned by South Dublin County Council and which are subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order in favour of Irish Rail as part of the Kildare Route Project

Under the Supplementary Development Contributions Scheme for the Kildare Route Project issued in December, 2007 an allowance was made for a reduction in the contributions for the Adamstown development due to infrastructure associated with that project which the developer of those lands would construct. The decision to include a second entrance and a 350 No. space Park and Ride facility on site was only introduced subsequent to the publication of the scheme and therefore could not have formed part of same at the time of its issue.

It is submitted that the Board should consider a reduction in either the supplementary development contribution or that a reduction should be applied to the overall development contribution to reflect the additional works to be undertaken by the applicant which will benefit the LAP / SDZ area as a whole and the Kildare Route Project.

The Board is requested to amend Condition No. 40 as per the aforementioned overall contribution figures and also to direct the Planning Authority to enter into negotiations with the applicant as regards the offsetting of some of the contribution costs against the additional elements of infrastructure which have been requested and which will benefit the Kildare Route Project.

7.0 RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY GROUNDS OF APPEAL

7.1.0 Response of Planning Authority: It is considered that the submitted proposal is an appropriate form of development at this location given the zoning of the site as ‘ A1 – To provide for new residential communities in accordance with approved area plans’. Furthermore, the proposal as amended by additional information complies with the requirements of the Clonburris LAP 2008.

7.1.1 Response to Third Party Appeal of the Electricity Supply Board (ESB): • SUDS are a Phase 1 requirement of the LAP as detailed in Table H.7: Development / Phasing Strategy and are a core principle of the strategy for the area as a whole. A comprehensive drainage network has been developed for the subject site in consultation with SDCC. The Planning Authority is satisfied that the measures proposed are consistent with best practice Sustainable Urban Drainage and subject to Condition No. 19 are adequate to cater for the proposed development.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 28 of 93

______

• The location of the attenuation ponds in Zone B has been carefully selected based on site topography and to maximise the potential of the lands outside of the ESB restriction zone – given the sites strategic location along a rail corridor. The ponds are open and will be graded for safety and biodiversity purposes with wetland planting to create a water feature within the site. • The submitted design was assessed by the Drainage Dept. of SDCC and whilst the ESB’s concerns regarding flooding of the substation are noted, no technical data to substantiate same has been submitted. • The submitted SUDS proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions (Nos. 12, 18 & 19 refer) and will be subject to SDCC’s Draft Taking in Charge Policy. Maintenance will be the responsibly of the applicant / developer until such time as the system is taken in charge. • Should the Board opt to address the issues raised by the ESB by way of condition, the following implications should be taken into consideration:

- Any design changes (such as embankments, berms etc.) will alter the landscape plan and may result in unforeseen consequences such as the creation of concealed spaces, changes in planting species and maintenance issues. - The siting of the ponds within the south-western area of the site is considered to be the optimum location as regards local topography, drainage patterns and the best use of space below the power lines. - Relocation of the attenuation ponds will alter the overall layout of the scheme and may impact on densities and open space.

• In relation to the ESB’s concerns regarding access to the substation compound it is considered that Condition No. 1 adequately addresses the implementation of the revised details submitted on 3 December, 2009.

7.1.2 Response to Third Party Appeals of Cllr. Derek Keating et al., William Lavelle et al. and the Combined Griffeen Planning Action Group: • The 6-storey building referenced by the appellants is located within Block C3 (not C2) and the Board is referred to the comprehensive assessment of building heights in the scheme contained in the Planner’s Report. Whilst the request for further information required a reduction in building heights along the northern site boundary, it did not require the height of the building referred to by the appellants to be reduced. The LAP requires a 6+1-storey landmark building to be provided at the northern entrance to the site and the submitted proposal complies with this requirement and acts as a gateway. Any reduction in the height of this structure will reduce its effectiveness as a gateway and will conflict with the LAP. • The Planner’s Report provides a comprehensive assessment of the pedestrian and cycle links between the site and the surrounding area. The LAP requires a Park Link between the existing park within the Roseberry / Oldbridge Estate and a small neighbourhood park to the western end of the proposed development. This link will be of substantial benefit to the residents of these estates as it will allow direct access to the facilities of the proposed development / LAP area (such as parks, shops and the existing school) and will reduce the walking distance to Kishoge Station by c.500-600m. • It is considered that mitigating factors that will deter parking / drop-offs etc within the existing estates will include:

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 29 of 93

______

- The provision of a Park and Ride facility immediately adjacent to the station. - The 500m distance between the edge of the estates and the station. - The design and layout of the estates is such that drivers would have to follow a long and convoluted route to reach any perceived drop-off point. - Most streets within the estates are too narrow to cater for on-street parking. - Resident parking within the estates is off-street.

• The proposed development exceeds the open space requirements of the LAP. It should also be noted that in addition to the 3 No. small parks required by the LAP additional open space is provided in the form of an extension to the existing park within the Roseberry / Oldbridge estates and the proposed park located between areas B and C. • Those areas beneath the power lines are identified in the LAP as structural landscaping and are not intended to be usable space and thus are not included in the open space requirements of the site. However, it is noted that the applicant has responded to the LAP in a positive manner which may encourage some limited use by providing meadows and community allotments. Furthermore, the proposed areas of attenuation enable the establishment of a self-contained SUDS network throughout the site that is not dependent on the further development of adjoining lands within the SDZ / LAP area. • The subject site forms part of the larger Clonburris development area and, therefore, a Transport Assessment for the site cannot be carried out in isolation. JMP Consulting (on behalf of SDCC) prepared a Traffic Assessment during the preparation of the Clonburris SDZ Planning Scheme and LAP. This concluded that the transport impact of the entire development would be satisfactory and its methodology and assumptions were accepted by the Board in its approval of the Clonburris SDZ Planning Scheme (ABP Ref. No. PL06S.ZD.2004). • The aforementioned Transport Assessment has informed the land use and density strategy for the overall site, and accessibility to public transport has determined permissible land uses and density ranges across the entire SDZ / LAP area. Medium density residential development of 1,099-1,318 No. dwellings is permissible on the subject site (82.6-99.1 / Ha) whilst mixed use / retail / commercial / leisure use is also permissible. Notably, the residential density of the subject proposal falls below that specified in the LAP, however, this is acceptable as such reductions can be offset against future applications in the neighbourhood (See Section D.3.5 of the LAP). • The LAP and Planning Scheme identify 3 No. development scenarios based on the delivery of three major public transport projects i.e. the Kildare Route Project, Metro-West and the City Centre Interconnector. The extent of development permissible in the Kishoge Cross Neighbourhood will be linked to the delivery of these projects and development in this neighbourhood is capped at 1,095 No. units in Scenario A (i.e. prior to Metro-West or the Interconnector). The subject application falls below the Scenario A cap. • Junction assessments of key internal and perimeter junctions, based on flows from the WSP Group SATURN modelling, indicated that, with the exception of the Fonthill Cross junction at the north-eastern corner of the site, all junctions would operate within capacity and queuing times would be

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 30 of 93

______

satisfactory. JMP worked with the WSP Group on this aspect as WSP were undertaking strategic modelling on behalf of SDCC using SATURN at the time of the assessment.

The Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road junction was not modelled by JMP at LAP stage as it was not considered a key junction in the context of the overall site. Forecasts submitted for this junction in the subject application use 2008 survey data and apply the assumptions etc. of the Clonburris Traffic Assessment. The methodology used is considered acceptable and the assessment indicates that the impacts of the development would also be satisfactory. Adequate mitigation measures are also included in Condition Nos. 15 and 37 of the grant of permission whilst it should also be noted that this junction is primarily intended to serve Zone C. Traffic from Zone B is deterred from using this exit through street design with low design speeds and protracted routes.

In addition to the applicants assessment, JMP modelled the junction of the ALR and the subject site (Zones A and B) taking account of the nature and scale of development permissible. This modelling indicated that the impacts of the development would be satisfactory.

• The JMP Transport Assessment sets out a range of mobility management measures for the site and a MMP for the subject proposal has been prepared in consultation with SDCC. The Planning Authority is satisfied that these measures are consistent with best practice mobility management and the Transport Assessment. Many of the measures have already been trialled by SDCC under the Smarter Travel Adamstown travel programme.

Condition No. 15 requires the finer details of the MMP and the Parking Management Plan to be agreed with SDCC prior to the marketing, sale or occupation of any development and no material alterations are envisaged.

• It is considered that the assumptions used in the trip generation forecasts are consistent with the Clonburris Transport Assessment and that modal split targets are reasonable. SDCC will monitor the implementation of the approved MMP and the traffic situation in the area and in the event that modal shift targets are not achieved Condition No. 37 is seen as an adequate measure to ensure mitigation of traffic impacts arising from the proposed development. • Condition No. 2 as imposed is considered to be an appropriate mechanism to ensure that no dwellings are occupied prior to the opening of Kishoge station. • SUDS are a Phase 1 requirement of the LAP as detailed in Table H.7: Development / Phasing Strategy and are a core principle of the strategy for the area as a whole. The submitted SUDS proposal is considered acceptable subject to Condition Nos. 12 and 18 which refer generally to compliance, maintenance and upkeep of the surface water drainage infrastructure. Maintenance will be the responsibly of the applicant / developer under such time as the system is taken in charge. • The agreement between SDCC and the applicant in relation to an exchange of lands and development proposals is an entirety separate process and is subject to planning approval.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 31 of 93

______

• The applicant has referred to community facilities in the wider vicinity in order to provide a context for the subject application in conjunction with the approved Clonburris SDZ / LAP. The LAP sets out a phasing strategy that requires the provision of community infrastructure and facilities such as schools, pro rata childcare provision, community centre and parks. This combined with the community facilities required by the SDZ area ensures that no substantial development will proceed without the provision of essential community facilities.

7.1.3 Response to Third Party Appeal of Chartridge Development Ltd.: • The Adamstown Link Road is required by the end of Phase 3 of the Adamstown SDZ to secure access between the R120 Lucan / Newcastle Road and the Outer Ring Road Phase 2 (R136). On completion the ORR will link the N81, N7 and N4 National Roads and Phase 2 of same was completed in 2006 to cater for strategic movement within the county based on existing and committed demand - including demand from the Adamstown SDZ.

SDCC retains ownership of the lands over which the ALR is constructed and has sufficient legal interest to grant permission for the proposed works.

The ALR lands were transferred to CDL at no cost to facilitate the construction of the ALR and an offsetting of development levies was given in respect of a proportion of the cost of the construction of the R120 / Kildare Railway Road / Rail Overbridge which was constructed over the ALR. At the time of the negotiations in relation to the land transfer SDCC was the landowner to the north and south and it was of the opinion that the land transfer was sufficient to offset any additional benefits arising from the ALR. The was no agreement by SDCC in relation to the reimbursement of the ALR construction costs and it should be noted that provision was made for access to the subject lands at the time of its construction.

The ALR remains in the charge of CDL and SDCC has requested CDL to complete the road and to formally offer it for taking in charge. A snag list of works was issued to CDL by SDCC in January, 2010 and the completion of these works is awaited. In the event that the roadway is not completed and formally offered for taking in charge within a reasonable timeframe SDCC can enter the lands, complete the outstanding works, and declare the road a public road at any time (pursuant to conditions contained in the land transfer agreement).

7.2 Response of Applicant: 7.2.1 Response to Third Party Appeal of Cllr. Derek Keating: • With regard to concerns raised relating to the partial development of the Clonburris LAP / SDZ lands without access to rail transport and the reference to a need to obtain clarification from Iarnrod Eireann as to the specific level of development considered sufficient to open Kilshoge Station, it is submitted that these concerns are addressed by Condition No. 2 as imposed by the Planning Authority in the notification of a decision to grant permission. This condition deals comprehensively with the phasing of the proposed

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 32 of 93

______

development and also with the concomitant opening of rail infrastructure to serve the development. • Condition No. 15 as imposed by the Planning Authority approves the Mobility Management Plan as submitted as part of the initial application and as amended in response to the request for further information and thereby ensures there will be no ad-hoc transport arrangements for the proposed development upon its completion. The wording of the condition is such that it seeks further detail in respect of parking management and the future monitoring and review of any plan. Accordingly, the appellants reference to the proposal as ‘outline’ is rejected. It is considered that the appellants concerns are unfounded and that Condition No. 15 should remain as imposed by the Planning Authority. • The presence of the overhead power lines and their exceptional height was considered during the preparation of the Clonburris LAP and the formulation of the overall layout strategy and open space requirements of the Plan. With the likely sole exception of kite flying, an extensive range of amenity uses and open-air activities will be able to take place within these structured landscape areas. • Fig. D.12 of the SDZ / LAP details the framework of Structure Landscapes, Major Parks and Neighbourhood Open Spaces for the area. The LAP proceeds to note that structured landscapes should generally follow major existing and proposed infrastructures although their final form etc. is a variable factor to be decided on a location-by-location basis. On this basis, it is submitted that the layout proposed has been carefully considered and tested in the context of the LAP and represents the optimum solution and the most efficient use of the subject lands. • The applicant recognises the need to protect existing broadband internet services for the area and also to deliver modern reliable broadband to the future occupants of the proposed development and will work with the relevant service providers to attain same, however, this matter is not considered to be a material consideration in the assessment of the subject proposal. • With regard to the appellants reference to school capacity / provision in the area, whilst no context is provided for this quote it should be noted that Chapter 6 of the EIS provides an assessment of the potential demand for school facilities arising from the proposed development.

Based on criteria advised by the Dept. of Education and Science, it was concluded that the proposed development has the potential to create the demand for c. 327 No. primary and c. 230 No. post primary places.

A number of other primary and post primary schools are planned for the Clonburris SDZ / LAP and, therefore, it is submitted that there will be sufficient capacity and choice of schooling in the area and that the additional population will sustain these schools. A 16-classroom school permitted under PA Ref. No. SD08A/0054 has been built on lands to the immediate northwest of the subject site.

• With regard to community facilities, the subject proposal will provide neighbourhood retail and recreational facilities, including sports facilities and community plots and a community centre of c.500m 2. These facilities can be

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 33 of 93

______

used by future residents of the area and existing communities without detracting from the viability of other nearby neighbourhood and local centres. • The EIS notes that local libraries are located in both Lucan and Clondaklin and it is not considered a reasonable argument that every new community should be within walking distance of a local library. Policy SCR11 of the County Development Plan seeks ‘To provide a community based public library service in South Dublin County’ and the subject proposal will play a role in the provision of such a service as the community develops. • The height of Building C2 (6-storeys) responds to the LAP requirement as shown in Fig. D14 for a ‘landmark’ building at this location. The Clonburris SDZ & LAP designates the location of Building C2 for a ‘local landmark height’ of 6-storeys +1 setback. • Despite the economic downturn it is submitted that the land use planning and transportation principles which underpin the Clonburris SDZ/LAP remain relevant. Whilst the rate of development may not be as prolific in the short- term, the economic cycle will see demand return over the coming years. • A fundamental principle enshrined in all relevant planning policy sources is the promotion of higher density residential communities based on high quality transportation networks. Clonburris has been conceived as an exemplar of this type of urban development and is located in a prime location within the Dublin Metropolitan Area. • It is considered that the new housing market which will emerge following the worst of the current recession will positively discriminate in favour of locations such as Clonburris which are close to employment centres, community facilities and public transport. In this respect the proposal is strongly supported by the consolidation agenda promoted by the Draft Regional Planning Guidelines for the GDA, 2010-2022.

7.2.2 Response to Third Party Appeals of (1) William Lavelle and Frances Fitzgerald (2) Siobhan Donnelly and Others (Combined Griffeen Planning Action Group): • It is considered that the submitted traffic counts provide a more than adequate baseline on which to assess the application. The counts took place in May 2008 during the school term with the computer analysis of same carried out in August 2008. The appellant’s assertion that the surveys took place in August 2008 is incorrect. • The appellants question the reliance on assumptions contained in the JMP Consulting Transport Assessment and the premise that traffic assessment is merely a tool to assist in the determination of planning applications. The applicant disagrees with this position and submits that any model cannot be taken as 100% representative of a real world scenario. The applicant is satisfied that the submitted analysis is robust and supports the decision to grant permission. Furthermore, it should be noted that JMP were independent transport consultants appointed by the Council to undertake a comprehensive Transport Assessment of the Clonburris SDZ & LAP. • The trip generation and modal split estimations are appropriate and substantiated and the methodology used in determining these rates is in accordance with the NRA Traffic and Transportation Guidelines, 2007. • The application includes for junction improvement at Griffeen Avenue / ORR which will ensure that this junction operates within capacity with the development flows in place. PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 34 of 93

______

• While it is accepted that the term ‘worst case scenario’ is more commonly used, the term ‘pessimistic scenario’ is the same for all intents and purposes and does not undermine the validity of the traffic assessment. • The reference to inconsistencies between the Planner’s assessment and the condition attached to the notification of a decision to grant permission is rejected. The absence of a condition seeking information post decision is deemed to be an indication that the Planning Authority was satisfied that the level of information submitted was adequate to allow it to make a decision. • With regard to the Mobility Management Plan, the Board is requested to agree with the policy objectives of the Clonburris SDZ/LAP which seek to encourage a modal shift away from the private car towards public transport and that this objective is attainable due to the high quality public transport (existing and planned) in the area. The MMP is a mechanism to allow the Planning Authority to continue to promote sustainable transportation patterns in the post-decision phase of the project. • The height of Building C2 (6-storeys) responds to the LAP requirement shown in Fig. D14 for a ‘landmark’ building at this location. The Clonburris SDZ & LAP designates the location of Building C2 for a ‘local landmark height’ of 6- storeys +1 setback. • The applicant has endeavoured to reasonably respond to the concerns of existing residents in the area whilst also delivering the elements of the LAP development framework in consultation with the Local Authority. Building C2 is denoted as Local Landmark 09 (LL.09) in the LAP, however, if necessary, the applicant is amenable to reducing the height of the building by one floor by way of condition. • The proposed link between the existing green area at Oldbridge Court / Rosberry Park was requested by the Local Authority. The form of pedestrian and open space links between the existing estate and the proposed development were given detailed consideration by the Local Authority in its assessment of the application and the Board is referred to the Planner’s Report in this regard.

Following the submission of the original application, the Planning Authority sought the removal of two of the proposed links between the proposed development and Oldbridge View and Oldbridge Grove respectively, taking account of public opposition to such links. However, pursuant to Item No. 8(c) of the request for further information, the Council sought to prioritise and pursue the inclusion of a Park Link between the existing park within Oldbridge and Zone B, Street 6 of the proposed development. This link is identified in Section D.2 of the LAP as a Park Link and forms part of the Secondary Urban Structure and will potentially reduce walking distances from Oldbridge to Kishoge station by 500m. The Planner’s Report prepared following the receipt of the amended proposals proceeds to detail the benefits that will arise from this Park Link.

It is considered that the proposed link is of an appropriate form and design and is located so as to preserve the residential amenity of the existing communities.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 35 of 93

______

• The open space strategy has been masterplanned in the context of the LAP and the applicant has consulted with the Planning Authority as regards compliance with same. In the applicants experience, the situation where overhead power lines are involved needs to be considered on a case by case basis and where a range of open space opportunities are proposed, then it is generally accepted that the most appropriate use of space beneath these lines is as amenity space. • The Board is referred to the comments contained in the Planner’s Report as regards the proposed landscaping of the development. It is also noteworthy that the development is located in close proximity to Griffeen Valley Park where the Council has invested in the provision of open space and associated facilities.

7.2.3 Response to Third Party Appeal of the Electricity Supply Board (ESB): • An addendum to the original Surface Water Drainage Report prepared by Buro Happold was submitted in response to the request for further information and Section 2.1 and Appendix A of same deal specifically with the issue of flood risk to the ESB substation. • At all stages the substation has been considered as critical infrastructure which must be protected against a 1 in 1000 year storm event. • The Buro Happold report notes that, in accordance with the Dublin Regional Drainage Policy on Environmental Management, all new developments must incorporate surface water management techniques which will not adversely affect the water cycle whilst the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage System is mandatory for all new housing developments. Accordingly, the proposed surface water drainage system has been tested as follows to ensure that the integrity of the ESB substation will not be compromised in the event of a 1 in 100 year flood event:

- The lowest existing ground level around the ESB compound is 56.71m. The maximum overflow pipe invert has been set at 55.5m so that the water in the ponds will not breach this even in the case of storm greater than 1 in 100 years. This means that water stored in the ponds will always be below the level of the ESB compound which complies with the mandatory requirements for new developments. - The attenuation ponds were tested using the runoff from the proposed development in the case of a 1 in 1000 year storm event using the agreed Greenfield runoff rates. The maximum pond water level was established for this event as 55.478m which is below the maximum overflow level of 55.5m. - The analysis undertaken concludes that the ESB substation will be protected against a 1 in 1000 year storm event which meets the requirements for critical infrastructure of this type.

• In relation to ensuring future access for emergency vehicles etc. it is submitted that the applicants response to Item No. 4(j) of the request for further information has addressed this issue. The Planner’s Report notes that Drg. No. HJL-80-0128 PST 0002 complies with this request and the applicant is amenable, if necessary, to a condition specifying the minimum corner radius of the turning circle at this location.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 36 of 93

______

7.2.4 Response to Third Party Appeal of Chartridge Developments Ltd.: • It is submitted that there is no provision within the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, for a third party appeal requiring the inclusion of a development contribution in respect of a development contribution scheme or a special development contribution and therefore this appeal is invalid and should be dismissed. It is considered that such a right of appeal lies only with the applicant as per the provisions of Section 48(10) of the Act and, as the appellant has provided no further grounds of appeal, this appeal cannot be considered under Section 37 of the Act and is invalid. • The statement that the Adamstown Link Road is not included in the Development Contribution Scheme and thus can be subjected to a Special Development Contribution is considered to be disingenuous. Table A: ‘Costs included in Scheme’ of Appendix 1 of the South Dublin County Council Development Contribution Scheme 2010-2017 states that these are ‘costs attributable in the lifetime of the scheme to the classes of infrastructure and facilities’ including ‘Class 1: Roads infrastructure & facilities’ . The reason the ALR is not included in the list of projects contained in Appendix II of the Scheme is that it has been completed and, it is assumed insofar as the Council is concerned, its costs have been met by its promoters i.e. the appellant. • The current SDCC Development Contribution Scheme was adopted on 14 December, 2009. Had the Council considered the ALR required inclusion in this Scheme, taking account of its importance as a piece of infrastructure, this cost would have been included in the Scheme, however, it is complete and is not a cost attributable in the lifetime of the current Scheme. • It appears that the ALR, which was an integral part of the infrastructure required to open-up the Adamstown SDZ lands, would properly and reasonably be funded by the developers of those lands. If the appellants logic were to be accepted they could seek a share of the costs associated with various other infrastructure such as the Adamstown Rail Station from the applicant. Such a proposition is not sustainable and cannot be upheld. • In granting permission for the ALR under ABP Ref. No. PL06S. 211506 the Board noted that it was ‘listed as a specific objective of the Six-Year Roads Programme’ and that it was ‘identified as a necessary infrastructural development to support the overall sustainable development of the SDZ area’ . From a review of this decision and the Inspectors’ Report it is notable that no reference is made to the funding of the road, which together with the fact that the application was made by CDL (a special purposes vehicle for the delivery of Adamstown SDZ), suggests that CDL would be responsible for the implementation of the development.

On the basis of the foregoing, and having regard to the contents of the Inspector’s Report, it is considered reasonable to assume that the appellants brought this scheme forward as without it they would not be in a position to develop their Adamstown lands. Whilst SDCC did contribute to the cost of the ALR, as a necessary piece of infrastructure, it is also reasonable to assume that the developer committed to cover the costs of the road and there is no evidence of anything to the contrary on the public record.

• The Development Management Guidelines, 2007 set out the instances where a ‘special’ contribution may be imposed under Section 48(2)(c) of the Act. They

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 37 of 93

______

point to the inherent limitations of this approach and state that a revised Section 48 Scheme or a Section 49 Supplementary Contribution Scheme would be the appropriate mechanism in instances where a particular piece of infrastructure has a wider benefit. Considering the recent adoption of the new Development Contribution Scheme it is submitted that any outstanding issues with regard to contributions towards the construction of the ALR would have been dealt with through this process and included in the Scheme had the need arose. • In the context of the current application the appropriate mechanism which would have allowed CDL to recoup the costs associated with the ALR from other landowners in the vicinity would be to propose the preparation of a Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme. This was not done and the attempts to recoup these expended costs have no basis in legislation. • The Planner’s Report notes CDL’s request for the imposition of a condition seeking a contribution towards the cost of the ALR and states that as the ALR is not a requirement of the Clonburris LAP that the application of a special contribution towards same would not be appropriate. • Whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant briefly engaged with CDL on this matter it became clear that the appellants were using the opportunity presented by the subject application to recoup costs previously levied on them by SDCC. Accordingly, the applicant rejects any suggestion that it has accepted the principle that part of the cost of the ALR should be borne by it.

7.3 Response of Chartridge Developments Ltd. to the Remaining Third Party Appeals: • Having regard to the contents of the other appeals, and the nature of its own appeal, CDL has no further comments.

8.0 RESPONSE TO FIRST PARTY GROUNDS OF APPEAL

8.1 Response of Planning Authority: Condition No. 10:- • It is Council policy to restrict the use of internally illuminated signage. Section 12.6.3 of the South Dublin County Council Development Plan, 2004-2010 restricts the use of internally illuminated box signage whilst Section 3.4.18.v of the Draft County Development Plan, 2010-2016 reiterates this policy objective ( N.B. The Board is advised that this Plan has since been adopted and is now the operative plan for the area) . • Condition No. 10(c) was included to prevent the indiscriminate proliferation of internally illuminated signage and such signage is to be the subject of a separate planning application. It is not considered that limiting this signage would inhibit the diversity, vitality and vibrancy of the future Kishoge area.

Condition No. 37: • It is considered that the overall development bond concerning the proposal is sufficient for the purposes of Condition No. 39 and therefore Condition No. 37 should be omitted. • It is considered that the assumptions used in forecasting trip generation are consistent with the Clonburris Transport Assessment and that modal split targets are reasonable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the planning assessment acknowledges that actual modal splits may vary depending on the adequacy of

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 38 of 93

______

the mobility management initiatives and external factors such as the road network capacity and public transport provision.

It is considered that the proposed Mobility Management Measures will be sufficient to achieve traffic movements that are close to the forecast levels, however, if these measures are not adequately implemented it is likely that vehicular trips will be higher than forecast. The Junction Capacity Analysis submitted with the application indicates that the Griffeen Avenue / ORR junction is operating close to capacity at present and, in the event vehicular trips are above forecast levels, it is likely that the junctions of Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road and Griffeen Avenue / ORR would be seriously compromised. Traffic exiting the subject site would have priority over traffic from Griffeen Avenue and Griffeen Road on the roundabout thereby increasing the impact.

In the event of a failure owing to high traffic movements from the subject site, a fully signalised junction in place of the existing roundabout would be required. The cost of such a signalised junction with toucan crossings will be €150,000 based on February 2010 pricing.

To reinforce the MMP, it is considered important that the applicant / developer contribute appropriately, in the event that a junction upgrade is required as a direct result of failure to adequately implement the agreed mobility management measures and where a significant increase on forecast vehicular trips occurs. Therefore, it is appropriate to attach a condition to any grant of permission which seeks a cash deposit / bond to cover the cost of any required junction upgrade. In the event the Board decide to omit any such condition the applicant should be required to install a fully signalised junction at this location prior to the occupation of any of the development.

Condition No. 38: • With regard to the applicants claim that a reduction should be applied to the contributions payable in respect of the residential element of the scheme based on the proportion of development which will be provided to the Council as social and / or affordable housing, it is submitted that the exemption applied by the Council in respect of such units is applied on the basis of the number of units provided by the applicant when complying with Condition No. 5 as regards Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended. The exemption relating to social and affordable housing is not applied in advance of compliance and, therefore, the charge relating to the residential element should remain as follows:

Description Applicable Area Applicable rate of Total (sq. m.) charge (€ / sq. m.) Residential 88,043.1 €120 €10,565,172.00

• With regard to the applicants claim that a reduction should be applied to the contribution payable in respect of the commercial element of the development based on the exemption of the crèche area from the relevant calculations, the permitted crèche (floor area: 390m 2) has already been omitted from the calculation of the contribution for the commercial element of the proposal in

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 39 of 93

______

recognition of its exempt status as per the Development Contribution Scheme. Therefore, the total charge relating to the commercial element, which already excludes the crèche, should remain as follows:

Description Applicable Area Applicable rate of Total (sq. m.) charge (€ / sq. m.) Commercial 9,229 €111 €1,024,419

• In calculating the contribution applicable to ancillary non-residential non- surface car parking, the Council has applied a rate of €55.50/m 2 to a total area of 12,434m 2 resulting in a figure of €690,087. The applicant has submitted that this should be reduced to €291,375 on the basis that the total quantum of car parking which is actually subject to the payment of a contribution is only 5,250m 2.

Following a review of the application of charges for car parking, it is accepted that the area used as residential car parking should be exempted. Accordingly, charges should only be imposed on 6,406m 2 of car parking with the reduced contribution calculated as follows:

Description Applicable Area Applicable rate of charge Total (sq. m.) (€ / sq. m.) Car parking 6,406 €55.50 (i.e. 50% of €111) €355,533

• The applicant has sought to offset the cost of infrastructure works approved as part of the subject application against the development contributions imposed, however, it is submitted that the charges applied are appropriate to the development based on the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme, 2010-2017.

It should be noted that a number of the infrastructure works are proposed as part of the subject application in order to meet the phasing requirements of Part H of the Clonburris LAP. These are works required to facilitate development in the Clonburris area which are not listed under the SDCC Section 48 Development Contribution Scheme.

The Council may enter into discussions with the applicant in the future as regards funding a proportion of infrastructure works where it is considers that these works will facilitate development on lands owned by the Council or in the wider County and where it is established that excess provision in respect of a full suite of infrastructure required for the area, has been or will be made. Any such finding would be subject to negotiation and is considered to be a separate matter for agreement between the parties concerned.

• On the basis of the foregoing, Condition No. 38 should be amended to facilitate the following revised development contributions:

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 40 of 93

______

Description Applicable Applicable rate of Total Area (sq. m.) charge (€ / sq. m.) Residential 88,043.1 €120 €10,565,172.00 Commercial 9,229 €111 €1,024,419 Car parking 6,406 €55.50 (i.e. 50% of €111) €355,533 Total €11,945,124.00

Condition No. 40: • With regard to the applicants claim that a reduction should be applied to the supplementary contribution payable in respect of the residential element of the scheme based on the proportion of development which will be provided to the Council as social and / or affordable housing, it is submitted that the exemption applied by the Council in respect of such units is applied on the basis of the number of units provided by the applicant when complying with Condition No. 5 as regards Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended. The exemption relating to social and affordable housing is not applied in advance of compliance and, therefore, the charge relating to the residential element should remain as follows:

Description Applicable Area Applicable rate of Total No. of Units charge per unit Residential 898 €1,900 €1,706,200

• A total of 6,713m 2 of development has been deemed to be commercial for the purposes of the Kildare Route Project Supplementary Contributions Scheme, however, the applicant has submitted that the commercial rate of this Scheme should only apply to 6,399m 2. In this respect, an area of 514m 2 designated as ‘community’ has already been excluded from the calculation in recognition of the applicable exemption. Accordingly, the contribution applicable to the commercial area should remain unaltered as follows:

Description Applicable Area (sq. Applicable rate of Total m.) charge (€ / sq.m.) Commercial 6,713 €22.25 €150,035.55

• Although the Council initially applied the commercial rate to a car parking area of 12,434m 2, following reassessment, it has been found that an area of car parking had been omitted from these calculations. The car parking area now considered to be subject to the Supplementary Contribution Scheme is 18,842m 2 and thus the contribution / condition should be amended as follows:

Description Applicable Area (sq. Applicable rate of Total m.) charge (€ / sq.m.) Car parking 18,842 €22.35 €421,118.70

• The applicant has sought to offset the cost of infrastructure works approved as part of the subject application against the Section 49 development contributions imposed, however, it is submitted that the charges applied are

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 41 of 93

______

appropriate to the development based on the terms of the Kildare Route Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme, 2007.

Whilst it is noted that the subject application includes for the provision of a secondary entrance to Kishoge Station in order to facilitate the proposed development, this entrance does not form part of the approved works under the Rail Order for the Kildare Route and is entirety separate from the Rail Order and the Section 49 Supplementary Scheme.

• On the basis of the foregoing, Condition No. 40 should be amended to facilitate the following revised development contributions:

Description Applicable Area Applicable rate of Total (sq. m.) charge (€ / sq. m.) Residential 898 €1,900 €1,706,200 Commercial 6,713 €22.25 €150,035.55 Car parking 18,842 €22.35 €421,118.70 Total €2,350,318.20

8.2 Response of Chartridge Developments Ltd.: • Having regard to the contents of the appeal and the nature of the appeal lodged by it, CDL has no further comments.

9.0 RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS OF THE FIRST PARTY AND THE PLANNING AUTHORITY:

9.1 Response of Planning Authority to First Party Submission: • The Board is referred to the contents of the Planning Authority’s earlier submission dated 6 April, 2010. • The Clonburris LAP requires that telecommunications infrastructure should enable high quality use and connection by a range of parties, promoting Clonburris as a successful place for business. All developments will be required to comply with DoEHLG Guidance. SDCC concurs with the applicants comments in relation to wider Broadband Internet provision. • The Clonburris LAP and SDZ Planning Scheme sets out a comprehensive and detailed framework for the delivery of a mixed-use urban district over a 15-20 year period and the land use planning and transportation principles underpinning them remain relevant. Permissible density ranges and uses across the site have been determined based on access to public transport and planned local facilities with the most intense areas of residential and commercial development focused on the public transport interchanges at Fonthill and Kishoge.

It is considered that the adopted plans set out an appropriate long-term vision for Clonburris and the Board is requested to adhere to same.

• The request for additional information did not require any reduction in the height of the 6-storey building referred to by the appellants. The Clonburris LAP requires a 6+1-storey landmark building to be developed at the northern

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 42 of 93

______

entrance to the site. It is considered that the landmark building as proposed accords with the LAP. Any reduction in the height of this structure will reduce its effectiveness as a gateway element and will conflict with the requirements of the LAP. • With regard to the comments made by the applicant in respect of the appeal lodged by the ESB, the Planning Authority assessed the drawings submitted in response to the request for additional information and is not opposed to a condition specifying a minimum corner radius as illustrated in Drg. No. HJL- 80-0128 PST 0002.

9.2 Response of First Party to Planning Authority Submission: • SDCC’s comments as regards the merits of the proposed development and its request for the Board to uphold its decision to grant permission are welcomed. • The applicant wishes to reiterate the contents of its first party appeal. • With regard to the Planning Authority’s revised calculation of the development contribution levied under the ‘Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme for the Irish Rail Route Project’ (Condition No. 40), it is reiterated that this Scheme makes no reference to costs to be levied for car parking (commercial and residential). Despite this submission SDCC have not omitted the levy on car parking but have actually increased it. Therefore, the Board is requested to amend Condition No. 40 by omitting any levy on car parking areas, for which there is no basis, and it is submitted that the correct contributions are as follows:

Applicable Area Applicable Levy Cost (€) Residential 698 units €1,900/unit 1,326,200.00 Commercial 6,399m 2 €22.25/m 2 143,017.65 Retail 2,526m 2 €29.00/m 2 72,964.00 Total €1,542,235.65

9.3 Response of Electricity Supply Board (ESB) to Planning Authority Submission: • It is reiterated that the development, which is located in the immediate vicinity of a critical piece of energy infrastructure (a substation), must respect the highly vulnerable nature of same to the effects of flooding. In this regard the Board is requested to ensure that comprehensive mitigation measures are included as part of any grant of permission • The ESB has not submitted any technical data regarding flooding as it does not have access to the data or drainage model that is required to produce a detailed technical report. • With regard to the Planning Authority’s comments that design changes such as the erection of embankments or berms etc. will alter the landscape plan for the area and may have further implications such as the creation of concealed spaces, it is submitted that SDCC should be more responsive to concerns regarding flooding of critical infrastructure. If the attenuation ponds were to remain in the location proposed the ESB believes that mitigation measures will be critical in order to safeguard the substation.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is requested to impose a condition which will require additional mitigation measures to be put in place including

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 43 of 93

______

the provision of a suitable embankment etc. to protect the substation. The ESB is amenable to agreeing a design for these mitigation measures through a mutual design process.

• SDCC should be required to provide a commitment to ensure that supervision is provided during the construction phase. In addition, the Council should undertake to take in charge the ponds and associated drainage system and any embankments should the completion of the development be postponed due to recessionary or other factors. • For the avoidance of doubt the Board should attach a condition confirming the increase in the minimum corner radii with specific reference to Drg. No. HJL- 80-0128 P ST 0002 Site Plan.

9.4 Response of Cllr. W. Lavelle & Senator Frances Fitzgerald to the Submissions of the First Party and the Planning Authority: • Expresses support for the submissions of the ‘Combined Griffeen Planning Action Group’. • Hopes the Board will accept the CGPAG’s arguments and overrule the relevant provisions of the Clonburris LAP and in turn either refuse permission or alternatively grant permission with significant amendments including a reduction in building heights and the overall quantum of residential units thereby reducing the potential negative traffic impact of the proposed development.

9.5 Response of Cllr. Derek Keating et al. to the Submissions of the First Party and the Planning Authority: • With regard to Kishoge Station it is submitted that Condition No. 2 as imposed by the Planning Authority would allow dwellings to be occupied once Iarnrod Eireann establish a minimum service. Accordingly, in the interests of proper and sustainable and planning a condition should be imposed which requires an effective minimum rail service to operate from Kishoge Station. • The appellants earlier use of the term ‘outline’ was in reference to the fact that the submission of a more detailed MMP is required by SDCC. • The practicality of providing green areas beneath the electricity pylons is questioned and the Board is again referred to PA Ref. No. SD05A/0274 and ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’. • Whilst the applicant has expressed a commitment to preserve broadband internet services it has not detailed how this will be achieved. ( N.B . the ESB maintain that the replacement of the existing tower with a lattice tower is the solution). This matter should be clarified prior to any grant of permission. • Policy SCR11 of the County Development Plan does not specify an exact location for the library, however, it is submitted that the proposed development represents a prime opportunity for the public-private provision of a further library facility. • Current planning policy is based on socio-economic data compiled prior to 2008, however, it is widely accepted that the next shift in the economic cycle will not be construction / property led. At present, there is a property surplus as, for example, Adamstown is generally accepted as being one-third

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 44 of 93

______

occupied. This surplus of residential development increases the risk of these areas becoming ghettoised and the development of further residential accommodation within the Lucan Environs would only serve to exacerbate this trend.

9.6 Response of Combined Griffeen Planning Action Group to the Submissions of the First Party and the Planning Authority: • The appellants wish to reiterate their concerns as regards the land exchange between the applicant and the Planning Authority and the need for an impartial assessment of the issues arising. • The Board is referred to the appellants previous comments with regard to building heights and the applicants response to same simply states that as the LAP requires high-rise buildings then they should be permitted, however, the Board is urged to dismiss this argument and to consider the issue of building height on its own merits, in particular in assessing the proposal against both Government policy and the previous Board decision made in respect of ABP Ref. No. PL06ZD.2001. • Having regard to the design of development employed along the Newcastle Road frontage of the Adamstown SDZ, it is considered that a 6-storey + building is not required to form a legible gateway at Block C2 as a high quality architectural approach would be more successful than simply increasing the massing and heights of buildings. In view of the surrounding pattern of development, it is submitted that 3-4 storeys would be sufficient to create a significant landmark highlighting the gateway. • The proposal fails to comply with Section 5.3 of the ‘Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ as regards building heights. • It is considered that the Board’s previous decision in respect of ABP Ref. No. PL06ZD.2001 provides a clear justification and precedent for a reduction of building heights along Griffeen Avenue. • The applicants assertion that the traffic count underpinning the Traffic and Transport Assessment was undertaken in May 2008 and not in August 2008 is noted, however, it is nevertheless submitted that this traffic count should not form the baseline for any assessment of the traffic impact of the proposed development as it is not up-to-date and does not consider the following:

- The opening of Lucan East Educate Together NS in September 2008 and the impact of school traffic on the Griffeen roundabout. - The cessation of the Morton’s ‘Circle Line’ bus service in July 2008 leading to a reverse modal shift i.e. bus users reverting to car use. - The closure of Esker Lane in August 2008 and the consequent change in traffic patterns in all areas of Lucan south of the N4, including increased traffic from the Esker & Willsbrook areas using both Castle Road and Griffeen Road / Griffeen Avenue to access the ORR. - The completion of the N4 upgrade and changes to traffic lights along the ORR which have lead to altered traffic patterns in the Lucan South area. - The increase in peak-hour traffic from Adamstown as more units were occupied between Summer 2008 and the end of 2009.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 45 of 93

______

• It is considered that a traffic count conducted in May would be unlikely to include peak-hour traffic arising from students driving to / from college / university. • It is reiterated that the traffic count is invalid and that it cannot be accepted as an accurate baseline for the traffic and transport assessment. • With regard to the reliance on assumptions contained in the JMP Consulting Transport Assessment, the appellants reiterate their concerns as set out in the grounds of appeal and contend that it is essential that a traffic and transport assessment be conducted appropriate to the micro level of the proposed development. • The applicant’s submission that the ‘pessimistic scenario’ detailed in the EIS is the same as a ‘worst case scenario’ is rejected. The ‘pessimistic’ scenario only refers to infrastructure improvements and not to actual service levels. In this respect it is submitted that since the preparation of the EIS there have been serious cutbacks in bus and rail services in the Dublin region and, therefore, there is no guarantee that the ‘pessimistic’ scenario would result in any modal shift from the private car towards public transport. Accordingly, the projected ‘pessimistic’ scenario could be different from a ‘worst-case scenario’.

Given the possibility of a ‘worst case scenario’ where the envisaged modal shift is not achieved thereby resulting in a much larger number of cars seeking to use Griffeen Avenue and the ORR, the failure to assess same seriously undermines the validity of the EIS and the TTA.

• In respect of the case for the use of a comparison methodology to predict car usage etc. for the proposed development, it is submitted that the Adamstown Castle & Adamstown Square neighbourhoods comprise a similar number of units to the proposed development and have access to Adamstown rail station and a similar level of bus service. Anecdotal evidence shows that current public transport usage from Adamstown is very low and this is supported by the Adamstown Household Survey conducted in 2009 which found that private car usage for commuting trips is high at 57%. The applicant has sought to refute these points by stating that unlike the Kishoge proposal the Adamstown rail station was not open before the units were occupied, however, this is considered to be a moot point as very few residential units were occupied by April 2007 when Adamstown station opened.

Modal split data for Adamstown is now available from the Adamstown Household Survey, 2009.

In ABP Ref. No. PL06S.ZD2004 the Board has already accepted that ‘to date, the modal splits intended for Adamstown have not been achieved’ although the relevant inspector was satisfied that this would be likely to change as the development progressed. If the Board has previously accepted that modal splits cannot be expected to be achieved in the early phases of Adamstown then it is submitted that a similar expectation must be applied to the subject proposal.

On the basis of the foregoing, it is asserted that a comparative assessment with the completed phases of Adamstown should be conducted if only to highlight

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 46 of 93

______

the need for more realistic modal split and trip generation rates in assessing the traffic impact of the subject proposal.

• With regard to the potential impact of the proposed development on the junction of Griffeen Avenue / ORR it is submitted that Condition No. 37 is inadequate to address same. It is considered that the inclusion of this condition serves to strengthen the argument that the EIS and TTA are flawed as they do not contain a ‘worst-case’ impact assessment. Furthermore, any required upgrading of the junctions of Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road and Griffeen Avenue / ORR should be completed before any development on site. • With regard to the proposed Park Link, the suggestion by SDCC that ‘sufficient mitigation factors exist that will deter people from parking vehicles or dropping people off within the Roseberry / Oldbridge estates’ is rejected for the following reasons:

- The park and ride facility adjacent to the station will charge for parking whereas free parking will be available a short distance away within the Roseberry / Oldbridge estates. - The 500m distance between the edge of the existing estates and Kishoge Station will not deter people from availing of free parking. Notably, SDCC has actually extolled the virtues of the link by stating that it will ‘reduce the walking distance to Kishoge Station from Roseberry / Oldbridge estates by some 500-600m’. - The route through the existing estates is no more convoluted that having to gain access to and drive around a park and ride facility. - In response to the suggestion that most streets within the estates are too narrow to allow on-street parking, it should be noted that on-street parking is frequently used by residents and visitors to the estates.

• If the event that the Board decides to grant permission, a condition should be imposed whereby the Park Link is managed by means of locked gates so that access through same is only available to residents of the estates concerned thereby preventing the problems associated with the potential ‘Park and Riders’. • The statement by SDCC that the location of the attenuation ponds was carefully selected ‘to maximise the potential of lands outside the ESB restriction zones’ is not accepted on the grounds that it implies a compromise has been made between the need for profit by the developer and the protection of local residents. It is submitted that the purpose of flood protection measures must be to provide the maximum protection to existing and future homes from flooding. Only when the location of such measures is chosen on the basis of flood risk and mitigation can they then be considered as sustainable. • It is noted that following a request for further information by SDCC, the applicant amended the flood alleviation measures by including swales. These changes constitute material alterations to the proposed development, the environmental impact of which has not been assessed. • The Board is requested to review its determination that an oral hearing is not required in respect of the subject application.

N.B. The appellants also reiterate the contents of their original grounds of appeal.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 47 of 93

______

9.7 Response of Chartridge Developments Ltd. to the Submissions of the First Party and the Planning Authority: 9.7.1 Response to Submission of the Planning Authority: • In stating that ‘it is only in recent years that the lands have been made accessible as a result of the provision of major road and rail infrastructure’ the Council has acknowledged the significance of the Adamstown Link Road in allowing the development of the subject lands. • The Council’s reference to it as having as sufficient legal interest in the lands to grant permission for the said works (i.e. the ALR) is not relevant to the grounds of appeal. In any event, it was CDL which lodged the planning application for the ALR and it was CDL: who had sufficient interest etc. to make that application. • In response to the Council’s reference to there being a transfer agreement which allows for the carrying out of works at the appropriate time, it is submitted that there is no such agreement and that the issue of land transfer is not relevant to the grounds of appeal. There was no transfer of the ownership of the ALR lands and the road was merely built under licence between SDCC and CDL. Furthermore, this licence did not exempt the appeal lands from contributing towards the ALR scheme. • The Council appears to be relying on the lack of any agreement in relation to contributions towards the ALR construction costs as addressing the grounds of appeal, however, it is not reasonable to suggest that simply because no agreement exists that this somehow precludes the Board from attaching a condition in this case.

It is submitted that to date the project has been funded by CDL with some contributions towards the cost of the R120 Bridge which was included in the overall ALR Scheme being made by SDCC. This road is of benefit to others and as such it is appropriate that these other lands should contribute towards the cost of the infrastructure.

The Council’s reference to an off-setting of costs in relation to the bridge over the R120, whilst not considered to be of relevance to the subject appeal, does highlight a willingness on its part to accept an off-set of costs in principle for a piece of infrastructure that is of benefit not just to a single development but to a wider area. It is considered that the same scenario applies in respect of the ALR.

9.7.2 Response to Submission of the First Party: • With regard to the validity of the subject appeal the applicant has referred to the provisions of Section 48(10) of the Act which relates to appeals made by applicants against the imposition of conditions pursuant to a Development Contribution Scheme. In response, it is submitted that the appeal of CDL simply seeks a condition to be imposed under Section 48(2)(c) which is not precluded by Section 48(10) of the Act. • Whilst the applicant has made reference to the Development Management Guidelines it should be noted that the Guidelines only state that ‘consideration should be given’ to creating a Special Contribution Scheme rather than stating

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 48 of 93

______

that this is the only mechanism. Accordingly, Section 48(2)(c) makes provision for an alternative arrangement. • It is considered that the grounds of appeal as submitted set out how the ALR is a pre-requisite for the development of the application lands.

N.B. The remainder of this submission reiterates the contents of the grounds of appeal.

10.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

South Dublin County Council Development Plan, 2010-2016:- Land Use Zoning: The proposed development site is located on lands zoned as ‘A1’ with the stated land use zoning objective ‘To provide for new Residential Communities in accordance with approved Local Area Plans’ .

Other Relevant Policies / Sections: Theme 1: A Living Place Section 2: Housing (including): Policy H1: Higher Residential Densities Policy H4: Public Transport Corridors Densities Policy H10: High Quality Design and Layout in New Residential Development Policy H11: Residential Amenity in Existing Residential Areas Policy H22: Adamstown and Clonburris Strategic Development Zones Policy H25: Mix of House Types and Sizes

Section 3: Social Inclusion, Community Facilities and Recreation (including): Policy SCR9: Provision and Management of Community facilities Policy SCR11: Local / Neighbourhood Centres Policy SCR13: Provision of School Sites Policy SCR16: New Residential Development and the Assessment of School Capacity Policy SCR23: Childcare Facilities within New Development Areas Policy SCR24: Childcare Facilities Neighbourhood Centres Policy SCR41: Open Space Provision in New Residential Developments Policy SCR42: Public Open Space and Children’s Play Ares Policy SCR60: Recreational Facilities in New Residential Developments. Policy SCR71: Allotments in New Residential Developments.

Section 4: Sustainable Neighbourhoods

Theme 2: A Connected Place: Section 2: Transportation (including): Section 2.2.10: Public Transport Provision Policy T18: Transport and Traffic Impact Statements Policy T19: Mobility Management Plans Policy T20: Park and Ride Facilities Policy T36: Multi-Storey and Basement Car Parking Facilities Policy T39: Roads Objectives:- It is the policy of the Council to implement the road objectives set out in the Six Year Road Programme of this Plan, to implement the other road objectives shown in the

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 49 of 93

______

Plan in the longer term, and to improve the existing roads of the County where necessary:-

Table 2.2.5: Six Year Road Objectives: Regional Road / Route District Distributor: Link from Adamstown to R403 Local Load: Clonburris internal link roads

Section 3: Water Supply and Drainage: Policy WD13: Risk of Flooding

Section 4: Environmental Services Section 5: Telecommunications & Energy Policy EC2: High-Voltage Power Line (Adamstown-Dublin City Boundary) Policy EC4: Telecommunications Network Policy EC6: Renewable Energy

Theme 3: A Busy Place: Policy TDL16: Clonburris Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme and Local Area Plan (2008): It is the policy of the Council that Clonburris shall be developed in accordance with the approved Clonburris Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme and Local Area Plan (2008).

Section 3.3.30: Mixed and Flexible Urban Grain and Perimeter Blocks Section 3.3.32: Landmark Buildings / Features and Gateways.

Section 4: Retailing Policy S6: District Centres Policy S37: Illuminated Box Fascias and Box Signs

Theme 4: A Protected Place

Clonburris SDZ Planning Scheme and Local Area Plan, 2008:- N.B. The proposed development site is located entirely within those lands subject to the Clonburris Local Area Plan as distinct from the Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme. Furthermore, I would advise the Board that the LAP is an extensive document and that whilst I have referred to certain key elements of same as set out below this list is not intended to be exhaustive.

Section C.4: Proposals for Development Section D.1: Neighbourhood Framework: Clonburris Eco-District Masterplan: LAP.01: Kishoge Cross

Section D.2.4: External Strategic Movements Strategy: ORR.01:- Existing roundabout junction, Outer Ring Road / Adamstown Link Road and Fonthill Link Road: The proposed development will provide no access at this location and will not affect the roundabout.

ALR.01:- Adamstown Link Road, new toucan crossing: The development will form a new toucan crossing over the Adamstown Link Road. This will necessitate some local widening to form a wide central island to

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 50 of 93

______

achieve a two phase crossing which is deemed necessary to minimise vehicle delay.

FLR.01:- Adamstown Cross, new junction: The development will form a new traffic signal junction with the Adamstown Link Road forming a new junction with the proposed east-west public transport route (proposed Station Road).

Section D.3.5: Land Use Strategy Section D.6: Urban Form Section F: LAP Neighbourhood Guidance: LAP.01: Kishoge Cross Section G: Sustainability Toolkit and Design Standards Section H: Delivery, Infrastructure and Phasing Section H.7: Development / Phasing Strategy – LAP Area Section J: Design Codes:

M.03.w: Station Road (West) M.07: Fonthill Link Rd. / Adamstown Link Rd. S.02: Kishoge Bridge I.03.b: Outer Ring Road Underbridge J.03: Fonthill Link Road Junctions J.04: Adamstown Link Road Junctions

11.0 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION SCHEME:

11.1 The South Dublin County Council Development Contribution Scheme, 2010- 2017 was adopted on 14 th December, 2009 and came into effect on 1 st January, 2010. Section 6 of this Scheme sets out the basis for the determination of development contributions whilst Section 9 details the schedule of charges applicable towards the various classes of public infrastructure in respect of the identified categories of development within the functional area of South Dublin County Council.

Class of Public Infrastructural € per square metre € per square Development of Residential metre of Development Industrial / Commercial of Development Class 1: Roads infrastructure & 76.79 71.03 facilities Class 2: Water & Drainage 4.37 4.04 infrastructure & facilities Class 3: Community facilities & 25.16 23.28 amenities Class 4: Parks and open spaces, 13.68 12.65 facilities & amenities Total of Contributions Payable €120.00 €111.00

11.2 Section 10 of the Scheme sets out a series of ‘Exemptions and Reductions’ and details a number of categories of development which will be exempt from the

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 51 of 93

______requirement to pay development contributions under the scheme including the following:

• Social and Affordable housing units, including those which are provided in accordance with an agreement made under Part V of the Act (as amended under the Planning & Development (Amendment) Act, 2002) or which are provided by a voluntary or co-operative housing body, which is recognised as such by the Council. • Ancillary surface car parking; • Ancillary non-surface residential car-parking is exempt • Ancillary non-surface non-residential to be reduced by 50% (ancillary is considered to be that which is required to comply with Development Plan standards) • Childcare facilities to be exempt • Development by voluntary not for profit clubs, non-statutory groups/organizations for non-commercial community related developments;

11.3 Sections 11-13 detail the general arrangements regarding the payment of development contributions and confirm that ‘Conditions requiring payment of the contributions provided for in the Scheme will be imposed in all decisions to grant planning permission made following the making of the Scheme’ .

12.0 SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION SCHEME:

12.1 The Irish Rail Kildare Route Project Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme, 2007 was adopted on December 10 th 2007 and came into effect on 1 st January, 2008. It applies to an area of 1,807 hectares (as designated on the scheme map) on either side of the railway line within the South Dublin County Council administrative area whilst the Kildare Route Project itself includes for the provision of two extra tracks alongside the existing two-track railway line and new stations at Fonthill Road (Clonburris) and Kishoge in the South Dublin County area.

12.2 Section 4 of this Scheme sets out the basis for the determination of development contributions whilst Section 5 (Table 5.1) details the schedule of charges applicable towards the various classes of development within the functional area of South Dublin County Council.

Table 5.1: Levy Rates in 2007 Prices:

Category Rate Residential €1,900 per unit Commercial €22.35 per m 2 (Gross floor area) Retail €29.00 per m 2 (Gross floor area)

12.3 The rates quoted on Table 5.1 above are to be indexed at the rate of 5% per annum subject to an option to the Council that it may suspend indexation for a period or periods should this be required.

12.4 Section 6 of the Scheme sets out a series of ‘Exemptions and Reductions’ and details a number of categories of development which will be exempt from the PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 52 of 93

______requirement to pay development contributions under the scheme including the following:

• Primary schools, Post primary schools, Voluntary non-profit making clubs and similar community facilities/centres, youth centres and similar non- commercial community related developments with a commercial element, to be exempt from assessment for financial contributions. • Social and Affordable housing units, including those which are provided in accordance with an agreement made under Part V of the Act (as amended under the Planning & Development (Amendment) Act, 2002) or which are provided by a voluntary or co-operative housing body, which is recognised as such by the Council.

13.0 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY:

13.1 The ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas, Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2008’ generally encourage more sustainable urban development through the avoidance of excessive suburbanisation and through the promotion of higher densities in appropriate locations. Chapter 5 of the Guidelines recommend that planning authorities should promote increased residential densities in appropriate locations, including cities and larger towns (defined for the purposes of the guidelines as towns with 5,000 or more people). Other appropriate locations for such increased densities include city and town centres, ‘brownfield’ sites (within city or town centres), sites within public transport corridors (with particular reference to those identified in the Transport 21 programme), inner suburban / infill sites, institutional lands and outer suburban / ‘greenfield’ sites.

13.2 The proposed development site is located on the urban fringe of Dublin City and could be categorised as ‘greenfield’. The Guidelines define such areas as open lands on the periphery of cities or larger towns whose development will require the provision of new infrastructure, roads, sewers, and ancillary social and commercial facilities such as schools, shops, employment and community facilities. However, the site is also located alongside a key ‘public transport corridor’, namely, the Dublin- Kildare Railway Line, which is presently undergoing upgrading as part of the Kildare Route Project which involves the four-tracking of much of the line and the construction of a new railway station at Kishoge to the immediate southeast of the subject site. Further transportation improvements planned for the wider area include the Dublin Interconnector and Metro West.

13.3 The Guidelines proceed to state that given the very substantial investment in public transport which has been committed under the Transport 21 capital programme and in order to maximize return on this investment, it is important that land use planning should underpin the efficiency of public transport services by sustainable settlement patterns, including higher densities, on lands within existing or planned transport corridors. In this respect the Guidelines recommend that increased densities should be promoted within 500m walking distance of bus stop or within 1km of a light rail stop or a rail station. Similarly, consideration is to be given to the capacity of public transport when considering appropriate densities along such routes. In general, it is recommended that minimum net densities of 50 dwellings per hectare, subject to appropriate design and amenity standards, should be applied within public transport

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 53 of 93

______corridors with the highest densities being located at rail stations / bus stops and decreasing with distances way from such nodes.

13.4 The ‘Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in September, 2007) provide detailed guidance in respect of the design of new apartment developments and place an added emphasis on overall qualitative and quantitative standards including internal floorspace provision.

13.5 The settlement strategy set out in Chapter 4 of the ‘Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area, 2010-2022’ supports the delivery of a hierarchy of settlements through the continuation of the policy for the metropolitan and hinterland areas within the GDA, focusing new housing within the existing footprint of the metropolitan areas and planned expansion of the footprint in conjunction with new high quality public transport investment; designation of multi- modal transport corridors providing enhanced public transport linkages serving key towns and linked investment in developing these designated towns in the hinterland area. Within this hierarchy Clondalkin (which includes Clonburris) is identified as a ‘Metropolitan Consolidation Town’. These towns are considered to be important foci within the metropolitan area and present opportunities for intensive development and activity and to focus growth around dynamic urban quarters within the fabric of the Gateway (Dublin City Centre & immediate suburbs) and for opportunities for employment and services proximate to high population densities. Accordingly, these towns are to be continued to be developed at a relatively large scale as part of the consolidation of the metropolitan area, and to continue to support key public transport corridors connecting these locations to the City, each other and Large Growth Towns in the hinterland.

14.0 ASSESSMENT

I propose to assess the Third Party appeals first, followed by the First Party appeal against a number of the conditions.

Third Party Appeals: From my reading of the file, inspection of the site and assessment of the relevant local, regional and national policies, I conclude that the key issues raised by the various appeals are as follows:

• The principle of the proposed development • Overall design ethos and the use of increased building heights • The adequacy and suitability of open space / parkland provision • The impact of the proposed linkages with adjacent housing areas • The adequacy of community facilities within the wider area • Impact on existing telecommunications infrastructure • Traffic implications • Flooding implications • The access arrangements to the existing ESB substation

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 54 of 93

______

• The requirement for a special financial contribution towards the construction costs of the Adamstown Link Road

These are assessed as follows:

14.1 The Principle of the Proposed Development: 14.1.1 The proposed development site is located on lands zoned as ‘A1’ with the stated land use zoning objective ‘To provide for new Residential Communities in accordance with approved Local Area Plans’. It is subject to the provisions of the Clonburris Local Area Plan, 2008 (as distinct from the Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme) and is clearly earmarked for development as part of the wider Clonburris Eco-district. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the overall principle of the proposed development is acceptable.

14.1.2 Whilst I note the appellants comments with regard to the rationale behind pursuing current planning policy, with particular reference to the fundamental changes in socio-economic conditions and as current policy may be based on growth projections for a period that has since passed and thus is not necessarily reflective of future growth trends, I am inclined to suggest that this raises much broader national issues which are beyond the remit of this appeal. In any event, it is my understanding that the Clonburris area has been identified as a focus for new development in the Lucan / Clondalkin area since 1967 and that its strategic significance was also recognised in the South Dublin County Development Plan, 1998. The recently adopted South Dublin County Development Plan, 2010 reiterates the strategic importance of this landbank given its location relative to key transport corridors including the Kildare-Dublin rail line and the Outer Ring Road and future infrastructural improvements including Metro West. Similarly, in a regional context the subject lands represent a clear opportunity to develop a sustainable urban district within the Dublin metropolitan area whilst the Clonburris Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme & Local Area Plan sets out a clear rationale for the development of these lands at the scale proposed in terms of maximising the opportunities provided by improvements to the Kildare rail line, the provision of Metro-West and ultimately a city centre Rail Interconnector line as well as a major Quality Bus Corridor networks. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the overall scale, extent and design of development proposed adheres to the basic principles of local, regional and national policy in terms of achieving sustainable development.

14.1.3 With regard to concerns expressed by some of the appellants in relation to the land exchange conducted between the applicant and South Dublin County Council I do not propose to comment on same other than to state the subject appeal will be assessed de novo by the Board.

14.2 Overall Design Ethos and the Use of Increased Building Heights: 14.2.1 Various concerns have been raised with regard to the proposal to construct a 6- storey landmark building as part of Block C2 adjacent to the Griffeen roundabout in close proximity to the Moy Glas, Griffeen Glen and Oldbridge housing estates. It has been submitted that the sudden transition from the existing 2-storey housing estates to a 6-storey apartment block would be contrary to the guidance contained in Section 5.3 of the ‘Guidelines for Planning Authorities, Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ which states that ‘particular sensitivity is required in relation to the

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 55 of 93

______design and location of apartment blocks which are higher than existing residential development. As a general rule, where taller buildings are acceptable in principle, building heights should generally taper down towards the boundaries of a site within an established residential area’. It has been suggested that proposed building heights above 4-storeys do not take adequate cognisance of the existing built environment and that the landmark buildings in particular will result in a visually disjointed townscape representative of poor urban design. In this respect the Board is referred to the comments of the reporting inspector who assessed the Adamstown SDZ (ABP Ref. No. PL06ZD.2001) with regard to building heights and the use of landmark buildings and it has been submitted that the nearby Newcastle Road frontage of the Adamstown SDZ provide an appropriate precedent with the tallest building along this landmark being only 4-storeys in height.

14.2.2 In the first instance, and in the interests of clarity, I would advise the Board that it is Block C3 (not Block C2) which incorporates the proposed landmark building and thus I propose to concentrate my assessment on same.

14.2.3 Section D.6.7 of the Clonburris Local Area Plan refers to the use of landmark buildings as key markers within the district which will act as gateways in assisting legibility through the scheme and by marking the distinctiveness of special places. Figure D14 specifically identifies a requirement for a Local Landmark (LL.09) at the northernmost point of the Kishoge Cross neighbourhood adjacent to the entrance to the scheme from the Griffeen Road / Griffeen Avenue roundabout. Section F of the LAP proceeds to provide specific guidance with regard to the development of individual neighbourhoods and the development schedule for ‘LAP.01: Kishoge Cross’ states that the Local Landmark identified as LL09 is to comprise a 6+1 storey construction.

14.2.4 The proposed development, as initially submitted to the Planning Authority, provided for the construction of 6+1 storey feature building as part of Block C3 at the junction of Street Nos. 1 & 5 (Zone C) with the remainder of the Griffeen Avenue frontage of this block extending to five-storeys in height. The design of this block was subsequently amended in response to a request for further information wherein the Planning Authority expressed concern that the five-storey frontage presented by this block onto Griffeen Avenue would detract from the scale of surrounding neighbourhoods and from those proposed within Zone C. The revised design as submitted to the Planning Authority on 3 December, 2009 provides for a four-storey frontage onto Griffeen Avenue, however, it retains the proposed 6+1 storey landmark and it is of relevance to note that the applicant was not requested to omit or reduce the height of the proposed landmark feature.

14.2.5 Whilst I would acknowledge the appellants concerns with regard to the introduction of a building of increased height relative to existing two-storey housing in the immediate area, in my opinion, it is clear that the subject proposal complies with the requirements of the LAP to provide a landmark feature of up to 6+1 storeys in height to act as a gateway at this location to the wider scheme. It is set back from the roadway with a considerable separation distance between it and the existing housing located opposite further north. In addition, it should be noted that the remainder of Zone C tapers down towards the site boundaries with two-storey units

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 56 of 93

______proposed along the western site boundary to form a defensible buffer with adjoining housing.

14.2.6 In my opinion, the proposed landmark building must be seen in the context of the wider development of the Clonburris district whereby higher densities, including instances of increased building heights, are to be facilitated given the sites strategic location along a key transport corridor. Accordingly, I am generally satisfied that the scale of the feature building, as amended, is appropriate in this instance and I cannot accept the appellants suggestion to overrule the provisions of the LAP and require a reduction in its height, however, if deemed necessary, it would be open to the Board to reduce the height of this structure by way of condition and in this respect I note that the applicant is amenable to omitting a single storey from same.

14.2.7 In broader terms I am also satisfied that the overall scale, design and extent of the development proposed is consistent with the aims of the LAP and adheres to the wider urban design framework contained within same.

14.3 The Adequacy and Suitability of Open Space / Parkland Provision: 14.3.1 Concerns have been raised that the proposed development does not provide for a sufficient level of open space / parkland to serve the existing residents of South Lucan and / or the future residents of Clonburris. In particular, specific reference is made to the overall suitability of siting open space, including allotments, beneath the existing 220Kv high-tension power lines which traverse the site. In this respect I would refer the Board to Section D.4 of the Clonburris LAP which sets out the broad principles of the landscape strategy adopted for the development of the wider Plan area and Figure D12 which identifies the locations of key elements of the landscape and open space structure.

14.3.2 It is envisaged that the landscape structure of Clonbirris will form a strategic linking element across all the neighbourhoods which will bind the area together as a whole and, accordingly, cognisance should be taken of the site context within the wider Plan area. The Plan proceeds to identify four elements of the landscape and open space structure of Clonburris, namely, structure landscapes, major parks, neighbourhood parks and local gardens.

14.3.3 With regard to the ‘structure landscapes’ in the case of the Kishoge Cross neighbourhood it appears that the locations of these spaces has effectively been determined by existing infrastructural constraints on site i.e. the 220kV electricity supply line which traverses the site and the wayleave for a high pressure gas main along the south-eastern boundary of the site. For example, it has been suggested that the presence of the power lines and their associated 70m wide wayleave effectively sterilises these areas from future development and I note that Table B2 (Opportunities and Constraints) of the LAP refers to the avoidance of development with this corridor in the short-to-medium term, although Section D.8.8 refers to a longer-term objective to underground the entire length of overhead cables north of the railway line between the M50 and Kishoge. Similarly, development within the way leave for the gas main is stated as being subject to consultation with Bord Gais. Therefore, Section D.4.3 of the Plan has confirmed that generally the locations of structure landscapes are fixed as they follow the major routes of existing and proposed infrastructure, although their exact dimensions and final form is considered to be variable.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 57 of 93

______

14.3.4 On the basis of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the structure landscapes as proposed in the subject application represent an appropriate refinement of the provisions of the LAP. Whilst I note the appellants concerns with regard to the overall suitability of using these areas as open space, the Planning Authority has responded by stating that the areas of structural landscaping beneath the power lines are not intended to be usable space and thus have not been included in the open space requirements of the site. With regard to the proposal to site allotments beneath the power lines, in my opinion, this represents an innovative solution in promoting some limited use of those lands which are not available for development and which are unsuited to other open space uses.

14.3.5 In terms of the wider open space provision within the scheme it is a requirement of the Local Area Plan to provide ‘Neighbourhood Parks’ of a minimum of 1 hectare within the each of the proposed neighbourhoods whilst Section D.4.7 of the Plan states that these parks can be provided in a range of configurations such as a sequence of linked medium sized garden squares or as a single park. In the subject case it is proposed to provide a series of 3 No. smaller neighbourhood parks (referred to as Kishoge Gardens in the LAP) within each zone of the proposed development as detailed in the landscape strategy of the Plan. In its initial assessment of the subject application the Planning Authority noted that these neighbourhood parks totalled 7,124m 2 and accounted for c.71% of the LAP requirement (i.e. 1 hectare), although an additional area of open space incorporating a playing pitch was proposed to be located to the northeast of Block B5 whilst Neighbourhood Park B could be extended further through the omission of Zone B Street 7.

14.3.6 In my estimation the various neighbourhood parks and other identifiable public open space proposed in the subject application amount to c. 80% of the required minimum of 1 hectare, however, at this point it must be borne in mind that the Kishoge Cross Neighbourhood extends beyond the limits of the application site boundary to include those lands located to the east of the Outer Ring Road. Within these lands there is a requirement to provide a further neighbourhood park as part of the network of spaces referred to as Kishoge Gardens. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the parkland provision within the subject scheme is proportionate to the level of development and the extent of the overall Kishoge Cross neighbourhood proposed.

14.3.7 On the basis of the foregoing, and noting that additional open space will be provided throughout the scheme in the form of smaller local gardens and communal spaces sited within the courtyards of the various blocks of housing, I would concur with the Planning Authority that the proposed development exceeds the open space requirements of the LAP.

14.4 The Impact of the Proposed Linkages with Adjacent Housing Areas: 14.4.1 The proposed development, as initially submitted to the Planning Authority, included for the provision of a number of dedicated pedestrian / cycle links between the subject site and the adjacent Tullyhall and Oldbridge housing estates which would have provided for increased permeability through the respective schemes and reduced walking distances for existing residents to Kishoge Railway Station, however, over the course of the assessment of the subject application the two links proposed between the scheme and Oldbridge View and Oldbridge Grove were omitted whilst the link

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 58 of 93

______between the existing park within Oldbridge Court and Zone B Street 6 of the proposed development was redesigned.

14.4.2 The proposed pedestrian / cycle link between the scheme and Oldbridge Court is identified in Section D.2 of the Clonburris LAP as a ‘Park Link’ (Figure D.8) which forms part of the Secondary Urban Structure of the Clonburris Eco-district and whilst the alignment of this ‘Park Link’ is considered to be variable its actual provision is deemed to be a fixed element of the Local Area Plan. In the initial proposal as submitted to the Planning Authority this link consisted of a narrow passageway which extended from Zone B Street 6 of the proposed development between two blocks of terraced housing to provide access to an area of open space within the Oldbridge Court housing estate. Whilst acknowledging the benefits of such a link in reducing walking distances for local residents to Kishoge station and the amenities and services of the proposed development, in my opinion, the actual design of this arrangement was poor in terms of both supervision and overall accessibility and thus necessitated revision. Therefore, pursuant to Item No. 8 of a request for further information, the Planning Authority required the applicant to improve and prioritise this ‘park link’ by means of the following:

- The physical widening of the link in order to act as an extension of the existing park within the Oldbridge Court estate and Zone B Street 6 whilst also providing for a continuous line of sight between the existing park and the proposed Neighbourhood Park within Zone B. - The redesign of Block B2 in order to reduce the extent of blank wall facing onto the southern boundary of the existing Oldbridge Court park area.

14.4.3 In response to this request the applicant submitted an amended scheme whereby Blocks B1 and B2 were redesigned with the terraced housing which originally backed onto the open space within Oldbridge Court omitted and replaced with a series of units which backed onto the western site boundary and which were orientated to face eastwards towards the proposed neighbourhood park within Zone B. The effect of this change was to permit an extension of the existing Oldbridge park / open space into the proposed scheme which would in turn function as both a physical and visual extension of the proposed neighbourhood park. The resulting Park Link is open and welcoming and adequately supervised on all sides thereby encouraging its use by local residents.

14.4.4 Several of the appellants have objected to the inclusion of this Park Link on the grounds that it will be detrimental to the existing residents of the Oldbridge and Roseberry estates. Specific concerns relate to the possibility that the proposed ‘Park Link’ will encourage non-residents, such as commuters, using Kishoge Station to avail of free on-street parking in the existing estates as opposed to using the proposed Park and Ride facilities thereby resulting in traffic congestion etc. There are further concerns that the cul-de-sac of Oldbridge Court will simply be used as a pick-up / drop-off point for rail passengers with the additional traffic through the estate arising from same posing both a safety risk and nuisance to local residents.

14.4.5 In response to these concerns the Planning Authority has stressed the benefits of the proposed link which will accrue to local residents such as the shortening of walking distances to the railway station and the provision of direct access to the

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 59 of 93

______facilities of the proposed development / LAP area including parks, shops and the existing school. In addition it has been suggested that a combination of mitigatory factors including the provision of dedicated park and ride facilities at the railway station and the actual design and layout of the existing housing estates will serve to discourage non-resident parking within these areas.

14.4.6 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the appellants remain of the opinion that the Park Link should be omitted from the proposed development, however, in the event that the Board are minded to grant permission, it is submitted that the proposal should be modified to address the concerns of local residents through the provision of an adequate turning area and additional footpaths etc. Furthermore, consideration should be given to managing the proposed Park Link whereby the gates to same would remain locked with access only available to residents of the existing estates thereby avoiding the problems associated with instances of non-resident / commuter parking.

14.4.7 Having considered the submitted information, I am satisfied as regards the overall principle of the proposed Park Link. In the first instance the provision of this link is a requirement of the Clonburris Local Area Plan, 2008 in that it forms a key element of the secondary urban structure of the Kishoge Cross neighbourhood. Secondly, the proposed link is of an acceptable design in terms of providing both a physical and visual link between the existing estate and the proposed development. Finally, there must be an appreciation of the wider benefits accruing to local residents arising from the proposed link in that it will provide for improved access to Kishoge Station and future transportation improvements in the wider area in addition to the various services and facilities proposed not just as part of the subject scheme, but as part of the wider Clonburris Eco-district. Whilst instances of parking within the surrounding estates by commuters etc. is possible and difficult to control, I am inclined to concur with the Planning Authority that the provision of dedicated park and ride facilities both as part of the proposed development, and as proposed on those lands to the south of the railway line, will serve to discourage any such activity. Accordingly, in my opinion, the proposed Park Link is appropriate in this instance in the interests of proper planning and sustainable development.

14.5 The Adequacy of Community Facilities within the Wider Area: 14.5.1 It has been questioned as to whether the existing community infrastructure in the area will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed development and an anticipated population increase of c. 2,800 persons whilst it has also been queried as to why facilities such as the Clondalkin and Lucan libraries, which are located a significant distance from the site, have been listed in the submitted EIS as existing facilities.

14.5.2 Clearly the provision of adequate community facilities and services within new developments, particularly large-scale housing schemes such as that proposed, plays an integral and important role part in developing sustainable communities and in this respect regard must be had to the context of the subject proposal within the wider Clonburris SDZ / LAP. Section D.7 (Table D24) of the LAP sets out a phasing strategy that requires the provision of community infrastructure and facilities such as schools, pro rata childcare provision, community centres and neighbourhood parks, and it is anticipated that this phasing, when combined with the community facilities

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 60 of 93

______required by the SDZ area, will ensure that no substantial development proceeds without the provision of essential community facilities.

14.5.3 Table D24 details that within Development Scenario ‘A’ (based on the delivery of the Kildare Route Project [4-tracking plus new stations at Fonthill Road and Kishoge] and Quality Bus Corridor & Services) the provision of up to 1,600 No. units is permissible subject to the provision of the following community facilities:

- Childcare to be provided on a pro rata basis i.e. one childcare facility for every 150 No. dwelling units (one facility is to provide a minimum of 20 No. places at 5m 2 per space gross) - 1 No. primary school - 1 No. post primary school - 1 No. local community facility (300m 2 / 1000 units) - 1 No. neighbourhood park - Recreation facilities including playing pitches etc. - 1 No. neighbourhood centre.

14.5.4 In addition to the foregoing Table C9 of the LAP states that a minimum of 4,410m 2 of community floorspace is required to serve the entire Kishoge Cross neighbourhood. Furthermore, the Board is referred to Part F: LAP.01 Kishogue Cross of the Local Area Plan which sets out a schedule for the development of these lands

14.5.5 Section H7 also sets out the development / phasing strategy for the LAP lands with particular reference to ‘Phase 1’ which comprises up to 800 No. units in the LAP.01: Kishoge Cross Neighbourhood within 200m of Kishoge Station and Station Road, and ‘Phase 2’ which permits a further 800 No. units within the remainder of the Kishoge Cross Neighbourhood and the LAP.02: Kishoge Grange Neighbourhood within 500m southwest of Kishoge Station.

14.5.6 The proposed development, as amended on 3 December, 2009, consists of the construction of a total of 898 No. residential units and, therefore, in accordance with the phasing strategy set out in Part H7 of the LAP, the proposal should include for the minimum set level of facilities and services specific for Phase 1 and a proportion of those required under Phase 2. I propose to assess these phasing requirements in turn as follows:

Phase 1: 1-800 No. residential units:-

- Local centre No. 1 / LAP based around Kishoge Station – to include a minimum of 800m 2 retail & other non-residential floorspace: The proposed development, as amended, includes for the provision of a local centre in the south-eastern corner of the site in the vicinity of Kishoge Station comprising 2,516m 2 of retail floorspace. This would seem to accord with the requirements of the Plan and does not exceed the maximum permissible retail floorspace for this area.

- Level 1 bus service provision: It is my understanding that a number of existing Quality Bus Corridors are located within an acceptable walking distance of the site. The site is also

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 61 of 93

______

located within walking distance of future bus routes as set out in the LAP although I would accept that the viability of these routes will be dependent on the scale and phasing of development in order to establish the population required to sustain these services.

- Pro-rata childcare provision: On the basis of a total of 898 No. units with 1 No. 20-place (100m 2) childcare facility to be provided for every 150 No. units, the proposed development would generate a demand for 598m 2 of childcare floorspace. The proposal, as amended, provides for a single 390m 2 crèche facility which would be below the required standard and would equate to a shortfall of c.42 No. child places.

The applicant has acknowledged that total childcare provision within the scheme is below that required by the LAP, however, it submitted that during the course of pre-planning discussions with the Local Authority it was agreed that in order to meet the requirement of the Community Dept. (of the Local Authority) for a minimum local community facility of 500m 2 that it was appropriate to provide a smaller childcare facility in lieu of same. Accordingly, the submitted proposal also includes for the provision of a 515m 2 community facility.

In their assessment of the original scheme as submitted to the Planning Authority (which included a 408m 2 crèche facility and a 503m 2 community facility) the relevant Planner acknowledged that it had been agreed during pre- panning that in order to provide a 500m 2 community facility a reduced crèche provision would be accepted. In this respect the Planner was of the opinion that the resulting total community/crèche floorspace provision of 911m 2 was generally consistent with the LAP requirement of 940m 2 and that a balanced outcome had been achieved. ( N.B . It should be noted that the final Planner’s Report does not specifically comment on the fact that the amended scheme only includes for a 390m 2 crèche facility and a 515m 2 community facility which total 905m 2, although it would seem that the Planning Authority is similarly satisfied that these revisions are generally consistent with the LAP).

- Post Primary School No. 1 / LAP in the Kishoge Cross neighbourhood: The subject application does not contain any proposals with regard to the provision of a Post-Primary school and thus would seem to fail to comply with the phasing strategy of the LAP, although I note that the location for this school within the Kishoge Cross neighbourhood is located outside of the application site to the east of the Outer Ring Road. In response to this apparent deficiency the final Planner’s Report comments that South Dublin County Council is in the process of transferring a site to the Dept. of Education for this school and that it is envisaged the school will be in place by the end of Phase 1.

Phase 2: 801-1600 No. residential units:-

- Primary school No. 1 LAP in Kishoge Cross neighbourhood. School to be a minimum of 16 classrooms and of permanent construction:

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 62 of 93

______

Although this is technically a requirement of Phase 2 of the development of the LAP lands it is of relevance to note that this primary school (situated in the north-western corner of the Kishoge Cross neighbourhood) has already been constructed and is presently open to pupils.

- Community centre No. 1 / LAP: In accordance with Table D24 of the LAP there is a requirement to provide one community facility to serve the initial 1,600 No. units constructed within the LAP lands at a rate of 300m 2 per 1,000 No. units. The subject proposal includes for the construction of a 515m 2 community facility which exceeds the requirements of the Plan.

- Neighbourhood Park No. 1 / LAP: The proposed development includes for the provision of the 3 No. neighbourhood parks identified within the subject lands by the LAP.

- Pro-rata childcare provision. Please refer to my earlier comments with regard to Phase 1.

14.5.7 On the basis of the foregoing, it is evident that whilst there are certain aspects of the community infrastructure required to permit the development of Phase 1 of the LAP lands that are lacking, most notably, the provision of a post-primary school and the deficiency in childcare provision, certain aspects of the Phase 2 infrastructure are either already in place or are proposed as part of the subject scheme i.e. the existing primary school, the proposed community facility and the proposed neighbourhood parks.

14.5.8 With regard to the requirement to provide a post-primary school as part of Phase 1 I would draw the Board’s attention to the fact that the lands identified for the provision of same are located outside of the application site and that South Dublin County Council is in the process of transferring these lands to the Dept. of Education with the aim of developing the proposed school prior to the completion of Phase 1. In my opinion, whilst this is perhaps stretching the intention of the phasing strategy as outlined in the Plan, I am generally amenable to same, particularly as the primary school required by Phase 2 has already been constructed. Similarly, I would accept the proposition that the additional community floorspace to be provided by the applicant (in response to a requirement of the Local Authority) compensates somewhat for the deficiency in childcare provision, although if the Board were to disagree with conclusion it may wish to consider addressing this matter by way of condition.

14.5.9 Overall, I am satisfied that the proposed development will provide for a sufficient level of community infrastructure and services to support the scheme and whereas I would accept that there are certain identifiable deficiencies, on balance, these are compensated for by the provision of alternative or additional facilities. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the subject proposal is broadly consistent with the aims and objectives of the LAP.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 63 of 93

______

14.6 Impact on Existing Telecommunications Infrastructure: 14.6.1 Concerns have been raised with regard to the impact of the proposed development on existing telecommunications services in the area and particular reference has been made to those buildings of increased height located in the vicinity of the existing ESB compound which presently houses a 30m high lattice type communications structure used by 6 No. licensed operators including both telecommunications providers and broadband internet companies. This existing communications structure has been in place for a number of years and most recently was granted permission on appeal under ABP Ref. No. PL06S. 227246 on 23 June, 2008 for its retention for a further period of 5 No. years (to expire on 22 June, 2013).

14.6.2 At this point I would refer the Board to the specific concerns raised in the submission made by ESB Telecoms on 18 May, 2009. This correspondence details how the existing communications structure acts a base station for various service providers and that an essential ‘line of sight’ is required in order to enable the equipment to send and receive signals from a network of structures. This submission then proceeds to specifically identify the building heights of Blocks A1, A4, A5, B4 and B5 which surround the substation compound and the potential for these structures to block signals to and from equipment sited on the communications structure. The heights of Blocks A4, A5, B4 & B5 are stated as ranging from between 12.757m to 13.8m, however, it is also noted that Block A1 is 5-storeys high and 19.525m in height whilst other blocks within Zones B and A extend up to five and eight storeys in height respectively. Operator equipment located on the communications structure is positioned at heights of 12.7m to 30m, however, particular concerns are held with regard to the broadband service operators which are sited on those lower parts of the structure as the higher frequency of this 3G technology has a reduced coverage in comparison to 2G and cannot penetrate buildings.

14.6.3 It has been suggested that in order to avoid any diminution in mobile and broadband coverage in the area consequent on the proposed development, that it should be a condition of any grant of permission that the existing 30m support structure be replaced with a 36m high ‘birdcage’-type structure thereby allowing service providers to locate to a higher level. It has also been submitted that such a structure would allow increased co-location thereby mitigating the necessity for a proliferation of similar structures in the area.

14.6.4 The Clonburris Local Area Plan, 2008 acknowledges the importance of broadband and telecommunications infrastructure to the district as a whole thereby enabling activities such as home office working, e-commercial business and education uses to prosper. Section D.8.10 of the Plan states that it is proposed to develop a data infrastructure spine comprising a network of fibre optic and broadband capacity cables routed in accordance with the primary and secondary urban structure with all the buildings in the district to be connected to this data spine and each dwelling to have at least two telecom ducts and to be serviced by carrier neutral multi-duct infrastructure.

14.6.5 Clearly, the provision of high quality IT, broadband internet and high speed telecommunications infrastructure will form an integral part in the development of the Clonburris Eco-District and whilst the provision of a network of fibre optic and broadband capacity cables within the scheme itself is to be welcomed this does not

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 64 of 93

______address the specific concerns raised in the appeal whereby existing service provision to the surrounding areas may be compromised consequent on the proposal.

14.6.6 Whilst I would accept the possibility that the proposed development may diminish existing service quality / provision within the surrounding area to a certain extent, this must be balanced against the wider strategic motives for the development of the Clonburris district and the desirability of developing higher residential densities etc. along key transport corridors / nodes such as the Kildare-Dublin rail line and Kishoge Station. Furthermore, it should be noted that the existing telecommunications structure located within the Balgaddy 38kV substation was only granted on a temporary basis in order to enable its impact to be re-assessed, having regard to changes in technology and design during the period of five years and to circumstances then prevailing . In my opinion, the development of the Clonburris Eco-district and, in particular, the Kishoge Cross neighbourhood, represents a fundamental change in circumstances, the impact of which will need to be given careful consideration by communication service providers.

14.6.7 Finally, the suggestion that the existing 30m high lattice structure should be replaced with a 36m high birdcage structure by way of a condition attached to any grant of permission is unworkable as the substation compound is not located within the site boundary and is outside of the control of the applicant.

14.7 Traffic Implications: 14.7.1 The Adequacy of the Traffic and Transport Assessment: Various concerns have been raised with regard to the validity of the submitted Traffic & Transport Assessment with particular reference being made to the adoption of the assumptions contained in the Transport Assessment prepared for the overall Clonburris LAP/SDZ as undertaken by JMP Consulting. Specific areas of concern relate to the assumptions made regarding traffic generation rates and the anticipated levels of modal split with the possibility that the actual traffic impact of the proposal may have been underestimated.

14.7.2 The appellants have submitted that Traffic & Transport Assessments for individual planning applications are of critical importance and are more than just a ‘tool to assist in the decision making process’ . In the subject case they submit that the TTA comprises a key element in the assessment of the traffic impact of the proposed development, particularly in the context that the SEA prepared for the Clonburris LAP has already referred to the surrounding road network as being at capacity. It is considered that the assumptions on traffic generation rates and modal split carried- over from the original JMP Consulting Transport Assessment (with particular reference to the assumption of 67% sustainable transport usage) are unreasonable and unrealistic and therefore the subject TTA is flawed. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the traffic impact analysis should have been less optimistic in terms of the estimated modal split that would be achieved by the proposed development and that a more appropriate mechanism for determining car usage would have been a direct comparison with a similar scheme such as Adamstown where anecdotal evidence apparently shows that public transport usage is low and almost negligible.

14.7.3 Whilst I would acknowledge the appellants concerns with regard to the assumptions employed in the Transport Assessment, it is of relevance to note that

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 65 of 93

______many of the same arguments were put forward against the transportation modelling employed in the preparation of the Clonburris Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme which was subsequently approved by order of the Board on 5 November, 2008. Having reviewed the contents of that order and the assessment of the reporting inspector, in my opinion, it is clear that the over-riding rationale for the approval of the Planning Scheme, including the transportation modelling employed for same, is equally applicable to the Clonburris Local Area, 2008 and, therefore, to the subject application. For example, the Technical Notes which underpin the transportation assessment for the Planning Scheme were explicit in stating that a traditional demand forecasting model was not used as it “would not take into account the change in travel behaviour that would be promoted by the masterplan for the area” i.e. a modal shift towards public transport within the wider Plan area consequent on the enhanced public transport accessibility of the Clonburris lands due to developments including the Kildare Route Project, the electrification of the rail line to facilitate the expansion of DART services, improved bus networks, Metro West and the City Centre Interconnector. The reporting inspector also noted that the DTO supported the use of a 67% modal split and that this was generally in line with the overall modal split target of 63% for the whole of the Dublin Region by 2016, contained in the DTO Strategy “Platform for Change”.

14.7.4 On the basis of the foregoing, and noting the overall rationale for the development of the Clonburris Eco-District which focuses on consolidating the metropolitan area and developing sustainable neighbourhoods at suitable densities along a key public transport corridor, I consider it entirely reasonable for the applicant to have adopted the transportation modelling employed for the Clonburris Local Area Plan, 2008. Accordingly, I am generally satisfied as regards the trip generation rates and transport modeling contained in the submitted TTA and although the use of such predictions is not an exact science the implementation of the proposed Mobility Management Plan will serve to maximise the shift towards the use of public transport etc. and away from the private car (PCUs).

14.7.5 With regard to the appellants suggestion that the traffic counts which form part of the Transport Assessment are not representative as they were conducted during the school summer holidays, I would advise the Board that it is clearly stated in Section 14.2 of the EIS that the traffic counts were undertaken between 10 May and 18 May 2008 when the schools were open and thus include for school-time peak-hour traffic congestion. This is reiterated in the applicants response to the grounds of appeal.

14.7.6 The appellants have also submitted that as the EIS was prepared prior to the submission of the additional information provided in response to a request by the Planning Authority that it is invalid as it does not relate to the scheme as approved. Accordingly, it is claimed that the developer is in breach of the EIA Directive etc. and that the Planning Authority has erred in law by granting permission for a scheme in the absence of a revised EIS. Whilst I would accept that the subject scheme has been modified in response to a request by the Planning Authority and that the EIS as initially submitted has not been specifically updated to reflect same, in my opinion, the remaining supplementary information provided by the applicant serves to address the key issues raised. I do not accept the appellants position that that the proposal should be refused permission pending the completion of a new EIS and I would stress

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 66 of 93

______that Environmental Impact Assessment is, in itself, a process undertaken as distinct from the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

14.7.7 In respect of the appellants comments that the submitted EIS does not refer to a ‘worst case’ scenario as regards traffic impact (i.e. that the envisaged modal split will not be achieved and therefore a much larger volume of cars will seek to use Griffeen Avenue and the Outer Ring Road) and instead simply refers to a ‘pessimistic scenario’, I would advise the Board that this ‘pessimistic scenario’ assumes that only the Kildare Route Project, including the construction of the new stations at Kishoge and Fonthill Road, and local bus infrastructure improvements, will be in place on completion of the proposed development. The applicant has detailed that this context was selected as the ‘pessimistic scenario’ on the basis that only the Kishoge and Fonthill Road stations were expected to be completed in advance of the opening year of the proposed development in 2011. Notably, the ‘optimistic scenario’ assumes that, in addition to these infrastructural improvements, Metro West and the City Centre Interconnector Tunnel will also be completed and operational. At this point it is also to relevance to note that traffic impact of the proposed development as detailed in the EIS has been determined on the basis of peak-hour traffic flows thereby ensuring a ‘worst case’ scenario in terms of impact on the surrounding road network.

14.7.8 Whilst I note the appellants concerns, it should be noted that there is no requirement for an EIS to identify a ‘worst case’ scenario as Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 only requires an EIS to include a description of the likely significant effects of a proposed development. On the basis of the foregoing, and considering that the Kildare Route Project is nearing completion, I am inclined to suggest that the ‘pessimistic’ scenario as described by the applicant forms an appropriate basis on which to determine the likely traffic impact of the proposed development.

14.7.9 Impact on the Surrounding Road Network: Although the proposed development includes for the construction of new access points to the site from the existing Adamstown Link Road and the proposed Station Link Road specific concerns have been raised with regard to the impact of the proposal on the existing traffic regime along Griffeen Avenue and particularly at its junctions with Griffeen Road and the Outer Ring Road. Reference has been made to Section 5.9 of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Clonburris LAP which states that ‘The surrounding road network is at capacity’ and the experience of local residents that at peak times it can take up to 20 minutes to drive from the Oldbridge estate to the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road roundabout. In addition, it is submitted that the Roads Dept. of South Dublin County Council has previously stated that ‘By 08:30 all approaches to the junction are heavy with the exit from Griffeen Avenue queued as far as can be seen from the [CCTV} camera’. Therefore, the appellants reject the contention contained in the Traffic & Transport section of the EIS that both the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road roundabout and the Griffeen Avenue / Outer Ring Road junction have spare capacity.

14.7.10 In response to these concerns the Planning Authority has stated that junction assessments based on flows from the WSP Group SATURN modelling indicated that, with the exception of the Fonthill Cross junction at the north-eastern corner of the site, all junctions would operate within capacity and queuing times would be

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 67 of 93

______satisfactory. It was also noted that JMP worked with the WSP Group on this aspect as WSP were undertaking strategic modelling on behalf of SDCC using SATURN at the time of the assessment. Furthermore, whilst the Planning Authority has acknowledged that the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road junction was not modelled during the preparation of the Clonburris LAP as it was not considered to be a critical junction in the context of the overall site, it is nevertheless submitted that the Traffic and Transport Assessment which accompanied the subject application, and which uses 2008 traffic survey data and applies the assumptions contained in the principle Clonburris LAP Traffic Assessment, confirms that the impact of the development on this junction would be satisfactory.

14.7.11 From a review of the submitted information, with particular reference to Tables 14.8, 14.9 & 14.10 contained in Chapter 14 of the submitted EIS, it would seem that the junction of Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road will operate within desirable capacity levels in all scenarios (with or without the proposed development) during the years 2008, 2011 and 2021. Whilst I would accept that this data would seem to conflict with the experience of local residents and previous comments made by the Roads Dept. it is of relevance to note that the Planning Authority remains satisfied that this junction has spare capacity to accommodate the additional traffic flows consequent on the proposed development. It should also be noted that this junction will essentially only serve Zone C of the wider scheme whilst a strategic aim of the Clonburris Eco-district is to change existing behavioural patterns by encouraging a modal shift towards public transport thereby easing traffic flows on the surrounding road network.

14.7.12 At this point I would refer the Board to my assessment of the first party appeal lodged in respect of Condition No. 37 which pertains to the imposition of a development bond towards the upgrading of the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road junction. In its response to this appeal the Planning Authority has acknowledged that actual modal splits may vary depending on the adequacy of the mobility management initiatives implemented and external factors such as road network capacity and public transport provision. It proceeds to state that in the event that vehicular trips are higher than those forecast, and in order to avoid the junctions of Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road and Griffeen Avenue / ORR from being seriously compromised, it would be necessary to install a fully signalised junction in place of the existing roundabout at Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road. Accordingly, in the event that the Board is not satisfied as regards the capacity of the existing roundabout to accommodate the proposed development it may wish to consider imposing a condition which will provide for a mechanism to ensure that the junction is upgraded as necessary, if required, for example, by way of a special development contribution or specifically conditioning the installation of a fully signalised junction in place of the existing roundabout at the junction of Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road.

14.7.13 With regard to the signalised crossroads at the junction of Griffeen Avenue with the Outer Ring Road, it is clear from an analysis of Tables 14.8, 14.9 & 14.10 that this junction is already operating close to capacity whilst projections for the design year of 2011 indicate that additional traffic from the proposed development will result in this junction exceeding its maximum capacity, at least until such time as there is a significant modal shift towards public transport. In order to address these capacity constraints the subject application initially proposed a number of junction

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 68 of 93

______improvements at the Griffeen Avenue / ORR junction which were intended to ensure that the junction would operate within capacity with the development flows in place. These mitigation measures are outlined in Section 14.8.1 of the EIS and consist of the introduction of a left slip lane on the Balgaddy arm of the junction and the extension of the right hand turning lane on the southern arm of the ORR to a distance of 90m in order to cater for a maximum of 15 PCUs. Provided these junction improvements were undertaken, the applicant proceeded to submit that the Griffeen Avenue / ORR junction would operate within capacity in all the scenarios tested. Notably, the Planning Authority was not satisfied that it had been demonstrated that the aforementioned junction improvements would ensure adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development and therefore it required the applicant to submit additional details in the form of up-to-date traffic surveys (outside of school holidays) to identify any additional capacity at this location. It was also suggested that if adequate capacity could not be shown through this process that alternative proposals may be required such as the creation of two eastbound lanes for the full length of the road between the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road roundabout and the Outer Ring Road.

14.7.14 In response to the foregoing (Item No. 5 of the request for further information), the applicant has extrapolated on its analysis of the junction of Griffeen Avenue and the ORR. It has submitted that provided the recommended road improvement measures are undertaken and the traffic signal times optimised to reduce delay, the degree of saturation on all arms of the junction will be less than 85% with practical reserve capacity increased to 5.9%. In addition, the site layout plan was amended to incorporate the required road improvements within the confines of the site boundary. Accordingly, it was submitted that with the mitigation measures in place the junction would provide adequate capacity to cater for the proposed development. The final Planner’s Report held on file details that these proposals were reviewed by the Traffic Section of the County Council which confirmed that, based on the submitted traffic generation report, the proposed mitigation measures would be sufficient to ensure adequate capacity at the Griffeen Avenue / Outer Ring Road junction.

14.7.15 On the basis of the submitted information, it would appear that the proposed mitigation measures at the junction of Griffeen Avenue / Outer Ring Road, when taken in conjunction with the trip generation rates and the modal split derived from the Transport Assessment compiled as part of the Clonbburris LAP, would be sufficient to ensure adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development.

14.7.16 The Mobility Management Plan: Whilst the overall concept of the Mobility Management Plan has been questioned by the appellants, in my opinion, the adoption of such a scheme is a key element in achieving the strategic aims of the Clonburris Eco-district including the modal splits envisaged in the Clonburris LAP and the development of sustainable transportation patterns.

14.7.17 Although I would concede that the success of any such scheme is ultimately reliant on the individual I would reiterate that I am generally satisfied as regards the trip generation rates and transport modeling contained in the submitted TTA and that the implementation of the proposed Mobility Management Plan will serve to

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 69 of 93

______maximise the shift towards sustainable modes of transport and away from private car usage. Accordingly, the specifics of any such MMP and the inclusion of an appropriate mechanism to review the implementation (and success) of same can be satisfactorily addressed by way of condition.

14.7.18 Kildare Route Project / Kishoge Station: Section C.4.3 of the Clonburris SDZ Planning Scheme and Local Area Plan states that the extent of development permissible within the Clonburris Eco District will be inextricably linked to the delivery of three major public transport projects, namely, the Kildare Route Project, Metro-West and the City Centre Rail Interconnector. The Plan subsequently proceeds to identify three development scenarios based on the delivery of these projects and Table D24 of the Plan details that within Development Scenario ‘A’, which is based on the delivery of the Kildare Route Project [4-tracking plus new stations at Fonthill Road and Kishoge] and Quality Bus Corridor & Services, a total of up to 1,600 No. units will be permissible within the LAP lands with 1,140 No. of these units to be located within the Kishoge Cross neighbourhood which includes the subject site.

14.7.19 The proposed development, as amended, consists of the construction of a total of 898 No. residential units and the phasing strategy set out in Part H.7 of the LAP is clear in stating that the construction of only 800 No. units is reliant on the opening of Kishoge Station and the associated Park and Ride car park, however, concerns have been raised in respect of correspondence issued by Iarnrod Eireann which states that whilst the Kildare Route Project will deliver increased capacity, due to the national economic downturn, demand levels along this line have actually reduced. It goes on to state that Kishoge Station was included in Iarnrod Eireann’s plans on the basis that extensive development would occur in the surrounding area, however, this development has not materialised to date although the station infrastructure has been constructed and can open once development in the area resumes.

14.7.20 In my opinion, the completion of the Kildare Route Project and the opening of Kishoge Station are fundamental requirements necessary to permit the proposed development. Accordingly, it is of the utmost importance that a condition be imposed in any decision to grant permission which prohibits the occupation of any of the proposed residential units until Kishoge Station has opened. Such a condition has been imposed by the Planning Authority, however, I would advise the Board that in order to ensure the proposal strictly adheres to the requirements of the LAP any such condition should also include a reference to the opening of the Park and Ride car park.

14.8 Flooding Implications: 14.8.1 The Clonburris SDZ Planning Scheme and Local Area Plan, 2008 seeks to facilitate the development of an integrated plan-wide Sustainable Urban Drainage System which will comprise a series of inter-connected swales located along strategic road corridors, strategic rail corridors and along two internal streets to be known as Swale Avenues, in addition to attenuation ponds to be sited to the east and west of the site, however, in order to meet the requirements of the LAP as regards overall attenuation and adherence to surface water runoff rates, and in the absence of a district wide SUDS, in this instance the Planning Authority has acceded to the applicants proposal to develop a self-contained system.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 70 of 93

______

14.8.2 The surface water drainage system designed to serve the proposed development is detailed as comprising the construction of an attenuated piped gravity system which will have two outfalls to existing surface water systems located to the north and northwest of the site. The rate of discharge from the system is to be limited to the Greenfield runoff rate, which has been specified by South Dublin County Council as 4lt/sec/ha, and in addition to the below ground in situ attenuation tank proposed within Zone C, attenuation ponds are to be located within the sterile belt provided by the existing 220kv overhead power lines. In respect of these proposals a number concerns have been raised with regard to the proximity of the proposed attenuation ponds to the Tullyhall housing estate and the existing ESB substation and the potential for flooding.

14.8.3 With regard to the ESB substation it has been submitted that this is a critical piece of infrastructure which can be categorised as ‘highly vulnerable’ as per Table 3.1 of ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management, Guidelines for Planning Authorities’. Accordingly, there are concerns that the siting an attenuation pond / storm cell storage facility adjacent to the substation could increase the risk of flooding to same. The ESB has indicated that it is not satisfied that the potential flood risk of the aforementioned pond on the substation has been adequately assessed and, in the event of a grant of permission, it has requested the Board to require the relocation the open pond / storm cell facility to an alternative location or, if an alternative location is not feasible, to ensure that comprehensive mitigation measures such as embankments are put in place to avoid any flooding of the substation compound.

14.8.4 In response the Planning Authority has indicated that it is satisfied that the measures proposed are consistent with best practice Sustainable Urban Drainage. In addition, it has submitted that Condition No. 19, which refers to the detailed design of the proposed attenuation ponds, will ensure that the proposed development does not increase the risk of flooding to the substation from 1 in 100 year flood event (with provision for climate change).

14.8.5 Having reviewed the subject application, it is of relevance to note that, pursuant to a request for further information, the Planning Authority required the applicant to respond to the ESB’s concerns as regards the risk of flooding to its substation. The applicant subsequently responded by acknowledging the need to maintain the integrity of the existing ESB substation and by stating that the surface water system had been designed to mitigate any flood risk. The key points made in this submission, which are reiterated in the applicants response to the grounds of appeal, are that the lowest ground level around the ESB compound is 56.71m whereas the maximum overflow pipe invert from the attenuation pond is set at 55.5m so that the water level in the ponds will not breach this even in the case of storm greater than 1 in 100 years. Therefore, under normal working conditions the difference between the maximum water level in the attenuation ponds and the existing ground level at the substation will be c.1.42m i.e. water will always be stored below the level of the ESB compound in accordance with the mandatory requirements for new developments. Furthermore, it is submitted that modelling of the attenuation ponds using the runoff from the proposed development in the case of a 1 in 1000 year storm event using the agreed Greenfield runoff rates has established that the maximum pond water level for such an event would be 55.478m which would remain below the maximum overflow level of 55.5m (and below the ground level adjacent to the substation).

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 71 of 93

______

14.8.6 Having regard to the foregoing, I am satisfied that sufficient information has been provided to support the position that the proposed surface water attenuation system has been suitably designed to mitigate against any increase in the risk of flooding to the existing substation. Similarly, I am not convinced that the proposal poses any significant risk of flooding to nearby housing whereas any outstanding issues relating to the specifics of the final design of the attenuation system and its future maintenance / taking in charge can be addressed by way of condition.

14.9 The Access Arrangements to the Existing ESB Substation: 14.9.1 Whilst the ESB has indicated that it has no objection in principle to the construction of the proposed development it has raised concerns with regard to the provision of continued suitable access to its Balgaddy 38kV substation. Although the compound which houses this substation is located outside of the application site boundary, it is nevertheless positioned within the wider landbank which makes up Zone B of the proposed development and thus will be accessed through same.

14.9.2 At present, the substation it is accessed from the north through those undeveloped lands which make up part of the subject site via an existing makeshift access arrangement which extends from the Tullyhall housing estate. In its initial proposal submitted to the Planning Authority on 14 April, 2009, and as detailed on Drg. No. ST P0006 B Rev. A (Part Site Plan Zone B), the applicant proposed to retain this existing entrance arrangement with access to same to be obtained via ‘Zone B Street 10’. However, in a submission received from the ESB on 18 May, 2009 it was submitted that the ESB had an obligation, under licence from the Commission of Energy Regulation, to respond to all faults within one hour and that in order to meet these response timelines it required 24-hour access to the fault location (i.e. the substation) for emergency repair vehicles and cranes, including 16.6m long low loader vehicles, which would require a minimum turning circle radius of c. 7m. Accordingly, it was submitted that the road widths proposed in the subject application had not been designed to accommodate such usage and thus once the proposed development was completed the existing compound entrance would no longer meet the ESB’s operational requirements. The ESB then proceeded to outline its intention to apply for planning permission for a new entrance to the compound along its western boundary from Zone B Street 9 as the road layout and building set back at this location would allow adequate space for the ESB to carry out general maintenance and emergency repairs at the compound with minimal disruption to the local community. Accordingly, the ESB requested the Planning to assess the subject application on the basis that it intended to apply for permission for this revised access arrangement.

14.9.3 Having considered the implications of the proposed development with regard to future access to the existing substation, and the ESB’s intention to relocate its existing entrance arrangements, in a request for further information the Planning Authority required the applicant to submit revised proposals which would increase the turning radii on the southeast corner of the junction of Street 1 with Street 9 (Zone B) to a minimum of 6m in order to accommodate larger vehicles accessing the ESB site. Subsequently, on 3 December, 2009 the applicant submitted a revised scheme whereby the turning radius at this junction has been increased to 6m [Please refer to

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 72 of 93

______

Drg. Nos. ST P0002 A,B,C Rev. B (Proposed Site Plan) & ST P0006 B Rev. B (Part Site Plan Zone B)].

14.9.4 Following consideration of this additional information the ESB made a further observation on file which reiterated that a minimum turning radius of 7m was required at the junction. It also requested that a condition be attached to any grant of permission to ensure the provision of sufficient access to the substation.

14.9.5 Subsequently, in their final assessment of the subject application, the relevant Planner noted that the requirement of the request for further information to increase the junction radii to 6m had been complied with and recommended that the matter be ‘condition[ed] as appropriate’, however, despite this recommendation, the notification of a decision to grant permission as issued by the Planning Authority does not include any condition which expressly requires the junction of Street 1 with Street 9 (Zone B) to have a minimum turning radius of 6m. It is this failure to include such a condition which is of concern to the appellant and it has requested the Board to attach a condition confirming the required increase in the minimum corner radii with specific reference to the revised site plan (Drg. No. HJL-80-0128 P ST 0002). At this point it is of relevance to note that the junction radius shown on revised drawings as approved by the Planning Authority, and as apparently accepted by the ESB, measures only 6m and not the 7m which is supposedly necessary for larger vehicles.

14.9.6 Whilst the Planning Authority is correct in stating that Condition No. 1 as imposed adequately addresses the implementation of the revised details submitted by the applicant on 3 December, 2009, and although it is amenable to acceding to the appellants request, if necessary, to impose a condition which specifies the minimum corner radius of the turning circle in accordance with Drg. No. HJL-80-0128 P ST 0002 Site Plan, this does not address the requirement for the turning radius to be 7m and not 6m. Therefore, in order to provide clarity to this issue and to address the appellants concerns with regard to ensuring adequate access to the existing substation, I recommend that it be an express condition of any grant of permission that the junction radius of Street 1 / Street 9 (Zone B) be increased to a minimum of 7m.

14.10 The Requirement for a Special Financial Contribution Towards the Construction of the Adamstown Link Road: 14.10.1 The proposed development site is bisected by the Adamstown Link Road and is reliant on access from same and, therefore, it has been submitted that the applicant should be required to make a contribution towards the cost of the construction of the ALR in view of the resulting benefits which accrue to the proposed development. In order to consider the merits of this appeal it is first necessary to outline the background to the construction of the ALR itself.

14.10.2 On 29 July, 2005 Castlethorn Construction was granted permission on appeal under ABP Ref. No. PL06S. 211506 for the construction of the ALR scheme including that section which extends through the subject site. In its order the Board noted that the South Dublin County Development Plan, 2004 listed the provision of this roadway as a specific objective of its Six-Year Roads Programme. In addition, the Board referred to the provisions of the Adamstown Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme 2003, wherein part of the development was identified as a necessary infrastructural development to support the overall sustainable development of the

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 73 of 93

______

SDZ area, and the existing and planned pattern of development in the area, including the provision of the Outer Ring Road and the development of a Quality Bus Network.

14.10.3 The construction of the ALR was subsequently undertaken by Chartridge Developments Ltd. (CDL) under licence to, and on behalf of, South Dublin County Council with the project having been funded by CDL with significant contributions from the Council. In the interests of clarity, it should be noted that Chartridge Developments Ltd. was established by a consortium of landowners within the Adamstown Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) who in tandem with South Dublin County Council undertook responsibility for delivering the strategic public infrastructure relating to the Adamstown development. Work commenced on the ALR in 2005 with one half of the route opened as a haul road managed by CDL security in December, 2006. Subsequently, in the summer of 2007, the road was opened to the public during daylight hours only under site security arrangements before opening to the public in the normal sense in September, 2008. At present, it is my understanding that whilst the ALR is open to the public it remains in the charge of CDL although South Dublin County Council has compiled a snag list of works and has requested CDL to complete the road and to formally offer it for taking in charge. In the event that the roadway is not completed and formally offered for taking in charge within a reasonable timeframe it would appear that SDCC is entitled to enter the lands, complete the outstanding works and declare the road a public road at any time (pursuant to conditions contained in the relevant licence / land transfer agreement).

14.10.4 In essence, the appellant, Chartridge Developments Ltd., is of the opinion that as the ALR forms a strategic piece of infrastructure, which is necessary for the future development of the wider area, including the Kishoge Cross lands, and that from the outset it was intended to be of benefit not just to the lands within the Adamstown SDZ but also the subject lands, then in control of South Dublin County Council (with specific provision made within the design to accommodate the development of the Kishoge Cross lands), that it is entirely appropriate for the applicant in this instance to be required to contribute financially on a pro rata basis towards the cost of constructing the ALR being specific exceptional costs not covered by a Development Contribution Scheme which have been incurred by South Dublin County Council in respect of public infrastructure and facilities which benefit the proposed development. In the event that such a condition is imposed by the Board it is then the intention of the appellant to seek a re-imbursement of these monies from the Council although it is acknowledged that this is not a matter for this appeal

14.10.5 The appellant has submitted that the ALR scheme was a specific objective of the Six Year Road Programme set out in South Dublin County Development Plan, 2004-2010. In addition, it is submitted that when the lands for the construction of the ALR were disposed of by SDCC to CDL it was acknowledged that the applicant (Shelbourne Development Ltd.) would contribute on a pro rata basis towards the cost of public infrastructure provided by others. At the time of this land transfer / agreement with SDCC the ALR did not exist as a road open to the public and, therefore, it is considered reasonable that the foregoing agreement to pay a pro rata contribution towards infrastructure benefiting the Kishoge Cross lands would include the ALR.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 74 of 93

______

14.10.6 In response the Planning Authority has stated that the ALR lands were transferred to CDL at no cost to facilitate the construction of the ALR and that an offsetting of development levies was given in respect of a proportion of the cost of the construction of the R120 / Kildare Railway Road / Rail Overbridge which was constructed over the ALR. At the time of the negotiations in relation to the land transfer SDCC was the owner of the subject lands to the north and south of the ALR and it was of the opinion that the land transfer was sufficient to offset any additional benefits arising from the ALR. Accordingly, it is submitted that there was no agreement by SDCC in relation to the reimbursement of the ALR construction costs whilst it should also be noted that provision was made for access to the subject lands at the time of its construction.

14.10.7 In addition to the foregoing, various references have been made by the interested parties to the phasing provisions of the Clonburris LAP and the Adamstown SDZ as regards the provisions of the ALR, whether or not the ALR can be deemed to be existing or committed infrastructure under the Clonburris LAP and whether its construction costs are already accounted for in the current Development Contribution Scheme.

14.10.8 Having regard to the foregoing, and noting the apparent obligations undertaken by various parties as regards the licensing of the construction of the ALR, I am inclined to form the opinion that any apportionment of costs attributable to the construction of the ALR with regard to the subject proposal is matter for resolution between the parties concerned. In this respect I would suggest that if there is any contractual obligation on the Local Authority to contribute further to the construction costs of the ALR by making further payments to CDL that this is a legal matter beyond the remit of this appeal. The Planning Authority has not deemed it necessary or appropriate to seek a special development contribution from the applicant toward the ALR and I would suggest that even if such a levy were required this would not necessarily translate into the monies being ultimately transferred to CDL.

14.11 First Party Appeal:

The first party appeal concerns Condition Nos. 10, 37, 38 & 40 as imposed by the Planning Authority and these are assessed in turn as follows:

Condition No. 10:- 14.11.1 This condition primarily relates to the display of shop front signage and advertising, however, the applicant has chosen to appeal Part (c) of same, which prohibits the internal illumination of signage, on the grounds that such a blanket ban is overly restrictive and will adversely affect the diversity, vitality and vibrancy of the future neighbourhood centre. In this respect the applicant has submitted that the merits of all signage should be the subject of individual assessment carried out by the Planning Authority in the context of Condition No. 10(a).

14.11.2 In response the Planning Authority has stated that it is Council policy to restrict the use of internally illuminated signage and has referred to provisions contained in the County Development Plan, 2004-2010 and the Draft County Development Plan, 2010-2016. At this point I would stress that the South Dublin

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 75 of 93

______

County Development Plan, 2010 has been adopted and I would draw the Board’s attention to Section 3.4.17.v / Policy S37 of same which states the following:

‘It is the policy of the Council that the use of internally illuminated box fascias and illuminated projecting box signs will be severely restricted, particularly when they are used indiscriminately in relation to the building to which they relate. All illuminated signs should be designed and operated so as to minimise artificial light pollution, particularly where such signs may cause nuisance to the occupants of residential accommodation in the vicinity. Where permitted, the daytime appearance of these signs is important and may require lettering or other features to be backlit’.

14.11.3 In my opinion, whilst the foregoing policy aims to ‘severely restrict’ the use of certain forms of internally illuminated signage, I am inclined to concur with the applicant that the blanket ban imposed by Condition No. 10(c) is excessive. In certain instances the display of such signage may be appropriate and, accordingly, I would suggest this can be satisfactorily controlled by a rephrasing of the relevant condition.

Condition No. 37:- 14.11.4 Although the wording of this condition is somewhat disjointed it would seem to require the developer to lodge a cash deposit, bond or some other security with the Local Authority in the sum of €150,000 in order to ensure that the Council can undertake the necessary upgrading works in the event that the stated vehicular modal split targets are not achieved and that it is deemed necessary to provide for additional capacity at the junction of Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road. The applicant has responded to the imposition of this condition by stating that the requirement for such a bond is unnecessary as the works associated with any upgrading of the Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road junction would be included within the development bond imposed under Condition No. 39 which pertains to the entire development in order ‘to secure the provision and satisfactory completion and maintenance to taking-in- charge standard of roads, footpaths, sewers, watermains, drains, public lighting, open spaces and other services required in connection with the development’. Accordingly, the applicant has sought the omission of Condition No. 37.

14.11.5 In my opinion, whilst the reason stated for the inclusion of Condition No. 37 as set out in the notification of the decision to grant permission simply refers to a need to ensure the satisfactory completion of the development, I am inclined to suggest that the purpose of this condition is not in itself related to the completion of the development or to the maintenance of the scheme to taking-in-charge standards as implied by the applicant. Instead, I would suggest that the condition is distinct from the development bond imposed under Condition No. 39 in that it relates to works which may be necessary in the event of a certain set of circumstances arising i.e. that the stated modal split targets are not achieved and it becomes a necessity to upgrade the junction of Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road.

14.11.6 Notably, in its response to the grounds of appeal the Planning Authority initially stated that it considered the development bond imposed under Condition No. 39 to be sufficient and therefore Condition No. 37 should be deleted, however, the remainder of this submission proceeds to set out a rationale for the imposition of Condition No. 37 in the first instance. It states that although the assumptions used in

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 76 of 93

______forecasting the trip generation consequent on the proposed development were consistent with the Clonburris Transport Assessment and the modal split targets reasonable, it is acknowledged that actual modal splits may vary depending on the adequacy of the mobility management initiatives implemented and external factors such as road network capacity and public transport provision. Accordingly, in the event that vehicular trips are higher than those forecast, and considering that the Griffeen Avenue / ORR junction is already operating close to capacity, it is considered likely that the junctions of Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road and Griffeen Avenue / ORR would be seriously compromised ( N.B. The Planning Authority has also noted that traffic exiting the subject site would have priority over traffic from Griffeen Avenue and Griffeen Road on the roundabout thereby increasing the impact). Therefore, in order to alleviate any such situation it would be necessary to install a fully signalised junction in place of the existing roundabout at Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road at a cost of €150,000 based on February 2010 pricing. In effect, the cash deposit / bond sought by Condition No. 37 is required to cover the cost of any junction upgrading consequent on a failure to adequately implement the agreed mobility management measures and where a significant increase in forecast vehicular trips occurs as a result of the proposed development. Notably, the Planning Authority’s submission subsequently concludes by stating that if the Board decide to omit any such condition the applicant should be required to install a fully signalised junction at this location prior to the occupation of any of the development.

14.11.7 Having regard to the intended purpose of the monies sought under Condition No. 37, I would suggest that the use of the term bond / security is inappropriate in this instance as it appears that the Planning Authority is in effect seeking a special development contribution towards future road improvement works. I fail to see how a bond, which is normally refunded under a suitable mechanism, can be used by a Local Authority to cover the costs of possible future works which may arise in a given set of circumstances. In my opinion, if specific exceptional costs were to arise as a result of the proposed development then it would be appropriate for the Local Authority to seek a special development contribution towards same. Alternatively, the Planning Authority could opt to condition the implementation of the necessary improvements as part of any decision to grant permission.

14.11.8 On the basis of the foregoing, and noting the Planning Authority’s request in its response to the grounds of appeal that Condition No. 37 should be omitted, I am inclined to recommend the deletion of said condition from any decision to grant permission, although the Board may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to attach a special development contribution (with an appropriate refund mechanism in the event that the works are not carried out) towards any future necessity for junction upgrading works consequent on the proposed development, or alternatively, to specifically condition the installation of a fully signalised junction in place of the existing roundabout at the junction of Griffeen Avenue / Griffeen Road.

Condition No. 38:- 14.11.9 This condition requires the payment of a development contribution of €12,279,678 being the appropriate contribution to be applied to the proposed development as per the provisions of the South Dublin County Council Development Contribution Scheme and in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning and

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 77 of 93

______

Development Act, 2000. The applicant has appealed this condition on two separate grounds and I propose to assess each of these in turn.

14.11.10 In the first instance it has been submitted that the contributions applied to the development have not been calculated correctly on the basis that no allowance has been made for the provision in the Development Contribution Scheme that social & affordable housing units and childcare facilities are exempt from the requirement to pay development contributions whilst a 50% reduction is to be applied to non- residential non-surface car parking. The applicant proceeds to set out the Planning Authority’s calculations as follows:

Applicable Area Applicable Levy Cost (€) (m 2) (€/m 2) Residential 88,043.1 €120 €10,565,172 Commercial 9,229 €111 €1,024,419 Car park 12,434 50% of €111 €690,087 Total: €12,279,678

14.11.10 On the basis of the applicants own calculations it is submitted that the development contributions should be revised as follows in order to make allowance for the aforementioned exemptions and reductions:

Applicable Area Applicable Levy Cost (€) (m 2) (€/m 2) Residential 64,756.80 €120 €7,769,616 Commercial 8,775 €111 €974,025 Car park 5,250 50% of €111 €291,375 Total: €9,035,016

14.11.11 In order to calculate the contributions required it is necessary to consider each of the relevant classes of development individually.

14.11.12 With regard to the ‘residential’ element of the proposed development I note that the applicant does not dispute the actual floorspace used by the Planning Authority in its calculation of the applicable development contribution or the rate of the contribution applied. Instead, it submits that the Planning Authority’s calculation of the contribution applicable to the residential aspect of the proposal is flawed in that it is based on the total residential floor area of the scheme with no allowance having been made for the exclusion of those units to be allocated as social and affordable housing pursuant to the requirements of Condition No. 5 as regards compliance with Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended. In its response to the grounds of appeal the Planning Authority has essentially acknowledged that its calculation of the contribution has made no provision for the exclusion of those units which will be allocated as social and affordable housing. Accordingly, in my opinion, the applicant is correct in that the contributions imposed under Condition No. 38 in respect of the residential aspect of the proposed development have made no allowance for social and affordable housing units and thus the terms of the Scheme have not been correctly applied, however, in explanation of its calculations, the Planning Authority has submitted that the exemption relating to social and affordable housing is not applied in advance of compliance with the requirements of Part V (as per

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 78 of 93

______

Condition No. 5) and, therefore, the charge relating to the residential element should remain as imposed.

14.11.13 Having considered the foregoing, it is clear that the applicant is correct as regards the Planning Authority’s miscalculation of the development contributions necessitated by the residential aspect of the proposed development, however, it is equally clear that, pending compliance with Condition No. 5 as regards Part V, the exact number of units and floorspace to be allocated as social and affordable housing within the scheme is an unknown quantity and thus cannot be factored into the calculation of the contributions. Therefore, until such time as the specifics of the social and affordable housing allocation required under Part V are agreed it is not possible to provide a definitive calculation of the contribution applicable to the residential component of the proposed development. In this respect I would recommend that, in the event of a grant of permission, the Board impose a standardised Section 48 condition which specifies that the exact amount of the contribution required is to be agreed with the Planning Authority and that in the event of a dispute the matter is to be referred to the Board for determination.

14.11.14 With regard to the ‘commercial’ aspect of the proposed development the applicant has submitted that the gross commercial floorspace utilised by the Planning Authority in its calculation of the applicable contribution has not allowed for the exclusion of the proposed crèche facility as per Section 10 of the Development Contribution Scheme. In response the Planning Authority has submitted that the total commercial floorspace figure of 9,229m 2 as detailed in its calculation has already allowed for the exclusion of the proposed crèche (floor area: 390m 2) and therefore the total charge relating to the commercial element of the scheme should remain unchanged.

14.11.15 By the applicants calculations the total commercial floorspace subject to a development contribution is 8,775m 2, which is 454m 2 less than the figure provided by the Planning Authority, however, it is unclear as to how the applicant has calculated this figure, particularly when the proposed crèche facility (as detailed in the amended scheme) measures only 390m 2. At this point I would refer the Board to Tables 1 & 2 contained on Page 80 of the final Planner’s Report which set out the floor areas of the respective elements of the proposed development. Having reviewed same it would seem that the Planning Authority has based its calculations on the following:

Class of Development Floor Area Commercial 6,259m 2 Retail 2,516m 2 Live / Work 314m 2 Management Building 140m 2 Crèche 390m 2 Community Facility 515m 2 Total 10,134m 2

14.11.16 Having determined that the total ‘commercial’ floor area of the proposed development is 10,134m 2 it appears that the Planning Authority then proceeded to deduct the floor areas of the proposed crèche and community facilities (390m 2 and 515m 2 respectively) in accordance with the exemptions permitted in Section 10 of the

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 79 of 93

______

Development Contribution Scheme in order to achieve a final figure of 9,229m 2 as set out in Condition No. 38.

14.11.17 With the exception of that area referred to as ‘Live / Work’, all of the floor areas as detailed above, and as used by the Planning Authority in its calculation of the total commercial floorspace of the scheme, correspond with those figures provided by the applicant in the revised public notices which accompanied its response to the request for further information. Accordingly, it appears that the Planning Authority’s use of a total commercial floor area of 9,229m 2 in its calculations is correct and has already taken cognisance of the need to exclude the proposed crèche and community facilities.

14.11.18 Notwithstanding the foregoing, I would nevertheless continue to have reservations as regards the calculation of the total commercial / industrial floorspace of the proposed development. The Planning Authority has chosen to include the proposed ‘live / work’ areas in its calculation of the commercial floorspace, however, it should be clarified that this does not result in double charging of any floorspace which has already been levied for as ‘residential’. Secondly, I note that no reference has been made to the proposed 523m 2 energy centre which could reasonably be classified as ‘industrial’ floorspace and thus would attract a development levy. I would acknowledge that Section 10 of the Development Contribution Scheme does exempt substations, switch rooms and the ‘Provision of infrastructural facilities’ from any requirement to pay a development contribution, although it is unclear as to whether the Planning Authority is of the opinion that this energy centre falls into any of these exempted classes. In any event, as outlined earlier, I would recommend the Board impose a Section 48 condition which requires the exact amount of the contribution to be agreed with the Planning Authority and that, in the event of a dispute, the matter be referred to the Board for determination.

14.11.19 With regard to the ‘car parking’ aspect of the proposed development, I would draw the Board’s attention to the exemptions listed in Section 10 of the Development Contribution Scheme which include the following:

• Ancillary surface car parking; • Ancillary non-surface residential car-parking is exempt • Ancillary non-surface non-residential to be reduced by 50% (ancillary is considered to be that which is required to comply with Development Plan standards)

14.11.20 On the basis of the foregoing, it would appear that the only car parking areas which will be subject to development contributions are those which are not intended for residential use and which are not located at surface level (i.e. basement or multi- storey car parking).

14.11.21 In its initial calculation of the contribution applicable in respect of car parking as set out in Condition No. 38, the Planning Authority has referred to a total parking area of 12,434m 2, however, it is not immediately apparent as to how this area has been ascertained. Neither has the applicant detailed how it arrived at the reduced parking area figure of only 5,250m 2. In its response to the grounds of appeal the Planning Authority has accepted that it has apparently overcharged for car parking on

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 80 of 93

______the basis that residential car parking should be exempted and, therefore, charges should only be imposed on 6,406m 2 of car parking, however, it remains unclear as to how this figure has been calculated. For example, Table 3 on Page 81 of the final Planner’s Report details that a total of 1,459 parking spaces are proposed within the scheme which would accord with the description of the revised proposal as set in the public notices submitted pursuant to the request for further information. This table also details that only 222 No. basement level parking spaces are to be allocated for non-residential use. Considering that Section 2.2.34 of the South Dublin County Development Plan, 2010 sets out the dimensions of a standard parking space as 5m by 2.5m (i.e. 12.5m 2 in area) a total of 222 No. parking spaces would only equate to a total area of 2,775m 2 which is considerably below those figures used by both the applicant and the Planning Authority to calculate the applicable contribution.

14.11. 22 Given the mixed-use nature of the proposed development and the likelihood of dual usage the actual definition of those parking areas subject to a development contribution is difficult to ascertain and, in my opinion, requires further clarity. I would also advise the Board that several of the other conditions imposed by the Planning Authority are likely to have a direct impact on the total area allocated for car parking at ‘non-surface’ level (e.g. Condition Nos. 13, 14, 15 & 22).

14.11.23 Having regard to the foregoing, I would reiterate my earlier recommendation to impose a Section 48 condition which requires the exact amount of the contribution to be agreed with the Planning Authority and that, in the event of a dispute, the matter is to be referred to the Board for determination.

14.11.24 The second aspect of the grounds of appeal with regard to Condition No. 38 seeks to reduce the total amount of contributions sought by offsetting the cost of infrastructural works to be provided as part of the proposed development against the development contributions imposed. In this respect the applicant has submitted that the subject application includes for the construction of several extraordinary items of infrastructure such as Station Road West which were agreed to be included on the basis that the Planning Authority would apply an appropriate reduction in the development contributions applicable to the scheme. In response to this suggestion, the Planning Authority has submitted that it considers the charges applied to be appropriate to the development and based on the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme, 2010-2017. It also notes that a number of the infrastructural works included in the proposal are required to meet the phasing requirements of the Clonburris LAP and are not listed under the SDCC Section 48 Development Contribution Scheme.

14.11.25 The applicant has requested that the contributions sought under Condition No. 38 should be revised to reflect the extraordinary levels of additional public infrastructure that are to be provided as part of the proposed development or that a mechanism be put in place whereby suitable reductions can be agreed with the Council prior to the commencement of development. Notably, the Planning Authority has indicated that it is amenable to entering into discussions with the applicant in the future as regards funding a proportion of infrastructure works where it is considered that these works will facilitate development on lands owned by the Council or in the wider County and where it is established that excess provision in respect of a full suite of infrastructure required for the area, has been or will be made, however, any such

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 81 of 93

______finding would be subject to negotiation and is considered to be a separate matter for agreement between the parties concerned.

14.11.26 Having reviewed the provisions of the Development Contribution Scheme, I note that there is no specific mechanism within the scheme which would permit the Planning Authority to offset the costs of the carrying out of certain infrastructural works against the required development contributions. Accordingly, in my opinion, the Board is precluded from imposing any such reduction as this would be outside the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme as adopted. Any future negotiations outside of the remit of the Scheme are a matter for the Planning Authority.

Condition No. 40:- 14.11.27 This condition requires the payment of a supplementary development contribution of €2,207,099.45 being the appropriate contribution to be applied to the proposed development as per the provisions of the Irish Rail Kildare Route Project Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme, 2007. The Planning Authority has calculated this figure as follows:

14.11.28 Similar to Condition No. 38, the applicant has submitted that these figures make no allowance for the exemptions contained in the Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme in respect of social & affordable housing units and ‘Primary Schools, Post Primary Schools, voluntary non-profit-making clubs and similar community facilities / centres, youth centres, and similar non-commercial community related developments with a commercial element’ . Furthermore, it is submitted that as the Scheme makes no reference to costs to be levied for car parking (commercial or residential) the Planning Authority cannot impose development contributions in respect of these areas. Accordingly, it is contended that the correct supplementary development contributions applicable are as follows:

14.11.29 Having considered the grounds of appeal and the Planning Authority’s submission in response to same, I would reiterate my earlier comments as regards Condition No. 38 in that until such time as the specifics of the social and affordable housing allocation required under Part V are agreed it is not possible to provide a definitive calculation of the relevant contribution. Such a conclusion is equally applicable in any calculation of the supplementary development contribution required by Condition No. 40 and, therefore, in the event of a grant of permission, the Board should impose a standardised Section 49 condition which specifies that the exact

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 82 of 93

______amount of the contribution required is to be agreed with the Planning Authority and that, in the event of a dispute, the matter is to be referred to the Board for determination

14.11.30 With regard to the calculation of the supplementary development contributions applicable in respect of the commercial aspect of the proposed development, having reviewed the submitted figures, I would concur with the response of the Planning Authority in that its calculation of the relevant floor area has already excluded those areas which are exempt from any requirement to pay a contribution under the provisions of the Scheme (i.e. the crèche and community facilities). Accordingly, I am satisfied that the figure of €150,035.55 as set out in Condition No. 40 appears to be correct, although I would reiterate my earlier concerns, as set out above in respect of Condition No. 38, that it should be confirmed that the Planning Authority has not double-charged the applicant for the proposed ‘live / work’ areas, whilst no reference has been made to any contributions for the proposed 523m 2 energy centre which would not seem to be expressly exempt under the terms of the Supplementary Contribution Scheme.

14.11.31 In terms of car parking, the applicant is correct in that the SDCS does not make any specific reference to costs having to be levied in respect of car parking (either commercial or residential), however, it could equally be said that the Scheme itself does include for any exemption relating to car parking unlike the general development contribution scheme. Regrettably, in its response to the grounds of appeal the Planning Authority has chosen not to address this issue and has instead simply ‘corrected’ the extent of car parking area used in its calculation of the applicable contribution.

14.11.32 The SDCS states that development contributions will be imposed on a per unit basis for residential development and per sq.m. for commercial and retail development, however, given the absence of any express reference in the Scheme as to whether or not car parking (either residential or commercial, surface or non surface) is subject to development contributions, it is necessary to consider whether these parking areas can be categorised as either residential, commercial or retail development. Regrettably, the SDCS does not contain any definition as to what constitutes ‘development’ subject to the terms of the Scheme, although Note 2 of Section 9 of the General Development Contribution Scheme states that ‘The floor area of proposed development shall be calculated as the gross floor area. This means the area ascertained by the internal measurement of the floorspace on each floor of a building (including internal walls and partitions) and including mezzanine floors’ . In my opinion, it would be reasonable to assume that the definition of development as contained in the general development contribution scheme would also translate into the implementation of the supplementary contribution scheme although I would accept that this is not necessarily the case. In my opinion, there would seem to be a case that basement level parking could be subject to a development contribution pursuant to the SDCS on the basis that it forms part of the floorspace of a given structure / building thereby according with Note 2 as outlined above, however, this would not seem to have been the approach adopted by the Planning Authority.

14.11.33 On the basis of the foregoing, it is my opinion that, at the very least, further clarity is required from the Planning Authority as to how it has arrived at its

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 83 of 93

______conclusion that 18,842m 2 of car parking will be subject to a development contribution in accordance with the SDCS. Given my earlier recommendation with regard to determining the residential component of the proposal which will be subject to a contribution, I would suggest that such clarification could be provided by way of condition with the exact amount of the contribution required is to be agreed with the Planning Authority and that, in the event of a dispute, the matter is to be referred to the Board for determination

14.11.34 The remainder of the applicants grounds of appeal with regard to Condition No. 40 is based on the premise that an allowance / reduction should be made in the supplementary development contribution to reflect additional works to be undertaken by the applicant which will benefit the LAP / SDZ area as a whole and the Kildare Route Project, for example, the construction of a second entrance to Kishoge train station on lands owned by South Dublin County Council and the provision of a 350 No. space Park and Ride facility on site.

14.11.35 In the first instance it should be noted that the applicant has made it clear that the provision of a second entrance to the Kishoge Station is to be the subject of a separate planning application to be made in conjunction with CIE and thus does not form part of the subject proposal. Secondly, the SDCS contains no provision whereby the costs of additional works undertaken as part of the proposed development could be offset against the required contributions. Accordingly, in my opinion, the Board is precluded from imposing any such reduction as this would be outside the terms of the Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme as adopted.

15.0 RECOMMENDATION

Having regard to the foregoing I recommend that permission be granted for the proposed development for the reasons and considerations and subject to the conditions set out below:

Reasons and Considerations:

Having regard to – a) the provisions of the Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in May 2009, b) the South Dublin County Development Plan, 2010- 2016, including the ‘A1’: To provide for new Residential Communities in accordance with approved Local Area Plans’ land use zoning objective for the site, c) the provisions of the Clonburris Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme and Local Area Plan, 2008, d) the extent of the site and its location in proximity to committed and planned public transport improvements and other services and infrastructure, e) the pattern of development in the area,

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 84 of 93

______

f) the layout, scale, height, density and housing mix of the proposed development, including the urban design approach of generally locating the higher apartment buildings away from existing adjacent housing, and the provision of open spaces and pedestrian/cycle links to adjacent areas, and g) the phased approach being undertaken to the development of the lands including the improvements to local infrastructure, it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed development would not contravene the provisions of the development plan and would adhere to the strategic objectives of the Clonburris Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme and Local Area Plan, 2008, would result in a development of acceptable density and housing mix, would not be excessively high or visually obtrusive, would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity and would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience. The proposed development would, therefore, be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. The development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged with the application as amended by the further plans and particulars submitted the 3 rd day of December 2009 except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions. Where such conditions require points of detail to be agreed with the planning authority, these matters shall be the subject of written agreement and shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed particulars. In default of agreement, the matter(s) in dispute shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.

Reason: In the interest of clarity.

2. The proposed development shall be amended as follows:

a) The junction radius of Street 1 / Street 9 (Zone B), as detailed on Drg. No. HJL-80-0128 P ST 0002 (Proposed Site Plan) received by the Planning Authority on 3 December, 2009, shall be increased to a minimum of 7 metres in order to accommodate vehicles accessing the adjacent ESB substation compound. b) The removal and / or relocation of those surface car parking spaces that fall within the visibility splays as detailed on Drg. Nos. 20010209/FI/1001 (WSP Street Design Overview Plan Zone A), 2001/FI/1002 (WSP Street Design Overview Plan Zone B) and 20010209/FI/1003 (WSP Street Design Overview Plan Zone C) received by the Planning Authority on 3 December, 2009.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 85 of 93

______

Revised drawings showing compliance with these requirements shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety

3. a) This permission shall be for a period of seven years from the date of this order. b) A phasing arrangement for the overall development shall be submitted to the planning authority for written agreement prior to commencement of development. In this regard:

(i) The phasing arrangements shall adhere to the requirements of the Clonburris Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme and Local Area Plan, 2008 as regards the provision of public infrastructure, services and community facilities. (ii) Work on any subsequent phases shall not commence until such time as the written agreement of the planning authority is given to commence the next phase. Details of further phases shall be as agreed in writing with the planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the timely provision of services, for the benefit of the occupants of the proposed dwellings.

4. No dwelling shall be occupied until it is certified in writing by the Planning Authority that both the Kishoge Railway Station and the associated Park and Ride car park have been completed and are open for use by the public.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and to ensure the timely provision of services, for the benefit of the occupants of the proposed dwellings.

5. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall submit to and agree in writing with the planning authority, an Energy Management Plan which shall include procedures for the monitoring and review of sustainability targets for general energy management, energy demand reduction and renewable energy supply.

Reason: In the interest of sustainable energy provision and to comply with the requirements of the Clonburris Local Area Plan, 2008.

6. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall provide separately a Mobility Management Plan for (a) future commercial use, (b) residential use and (c) the construction phase. These plans shall be provided by an independent auditor, who shall be acceptable to the planning authority,

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 86 of 93

______

and shall where possible make reference to existing successful local examples and proposals for continuing monitoring and reporting to the planning authority. These plans shall, where possible, include for financial incentives/subsidies to use modes of transport other than the private car such as walking, cycling and public transport.

Reason: To achieve a balanced modal split for trips to/from the proposed development.

7. A Parking Management Plan shall be prepared for the site which shall indicate how parking spaces within the development are to be assigned, segregated by use and how the car parking will be continually managed, with particular reference to the proposed Park and Ride facility. The Plan should also include details of an effective enforcement system, permit pricing, penalties and visitor parking provisions. Details in this regard, including details of the location and design of adequate bicycle parking, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development

Reason: In the interest of orderly development.

8. Details of the materials, colours and textures of all external finishes to the proposed buildings, in addition to those of all roadways, pavements, cycleways, on street parking bays and other hard landscaped areas, shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

9. A scheme of shopfront design, including any associated signage, lettering, lighting or internal security screens, shall be submitted to the planning authority for written agreement before development commences.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

10. Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the attenuation and disposal of surface water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such works and services.

Reason: In the interest of public health.

11. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed at least to the construction standards set out in the Recommendations for Site Development Works for Housing Areas issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in November, 1998. Following completion, the development shall be maintained by the developer, in compliance with these standards, until taken in charge by the planning authority.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 87 of 93

______

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out and completed to an acceptable standard of construction.

12. The internal road network serving the proposed development, including turning bays, junctions, parking areas, footpaths and kerbs, access roads to service areas and the underground car parks shall be in accordance with the detailed standards of the planning authority for such works.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of traffic and pedestrian safety.

13. Footpaths shall be dished at road junctions in accordance with the requirements of the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of pedestrian safety.

14. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall submit to and agree in writing with the planning authority proposals for signing and lining within the development to properly define traffic priority and vehicle speed limits throughout the development.

Reason: In the interest of traffic safety.

15. Public lighting shall be provided in accordance with a scheme, which shall include lighting along pedestrian routes through open spaces, details of which shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development. Such lighting shall be provided prior to the making available for occupation of any house.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and public safety.

16. All service cables associated with the proposed development (such as electrical, telecommunications and communal television) shall be located underground. Ducting shall be provided by the developer to facilitate the provision of broadband infrastructure within the proposed development.

Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity.

17. a) The areas of public open space and those communal semi-private areas, including residential courtyards and roof gardens, shown on the lodged plans shall be reserved for such use and shall be levelled, contoured, soiled, seeded, and landscaped in accordance with the detailed requirements of the planning authority. This work shall be completed before any of the dwellings within that phase of the development are made available for occupation and shall be maintained as open space by the developer unless taken in charge by the local authority. b) All planting shall be adequately protected from damage until established. Any plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development or until the development is taken in charge by the local authority, whichever is the sooner,

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 88 of 93

______

shall be replaced within the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority. c) Details and specifications of proposed children’s play equipment shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to its installation.

Reason: In the interest of public safety and in order to ensure the satisfactory development of the open space areas, and their continued use for this purpose.

18. The developer shall retain the services of a landscape consultant throughout the life of the site development works. A completion certificate shall be signed off by the landscape consultant when all works are completed and in line with the submitted landscape drawings.

Reason: To ensure full implementation of the proposed landscape design and in the interest of the residential and visual amenity of the proposed development and surrounding area.

19. Construction and demolition waste shall be managed in accordance with a construction waste and demolition management plan, which shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development. This plan shall be prepared in accordance with the “Best Practice Guidelines on the Preparation of Waste Management Plans for Construction and Demolition Projects”, published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in July 2006. The plan shall include details of waste to be generated during site clearance and construction phases, and details of the methods and locations to be employed for the prevention, minimisation, recovery and disposal of this material in accordance with the provision of the Waste Management Plan for the Region in which the site is situated.

Reason : In the interests of sustainable waste management.

20. The construction of the development shall be managed in accordance with a Construction Management Plan, which shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development. This plan shall provide details of intended construction practice for the development, including:

a) Location of the site and materials compound(s) including area(s identified for the storage of construction refuse; b) Location of areas for construction site offices and staff facilities; c) Details of site security fencing and hoardings; d) Details of on-site car parking facilities for site workers during the course of construction; e) Details of the timing and routing of construction traffic to and from the construction site and associated directional signage, to include proposals to facilitate the delivery of abnormal loads to the site;

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 89 of 93

______

f) Measures to obviate queuing of construction traffic on the adjoining road network; g) Measures to prevent the spillage or deposit of clay, rubble or other debris on the public road network; h) Alternative arrangements to be put in place for pedestrians and vehicles in the case of the closure of any public road or footpath during the course of site development works; i) Alternative safe and secure access arrangements to be put in place during construction works for pedestrians and vehicles accessing the Lucan East Educate Together National School; j) Details of the interim pedestrian access through Zone ‘A’ to the proposed temporary surface car park which facilitates access to Kishoge rail station; k) Details of appropriate mitigation measures for noise, dust and vibration, and monitoring of such levels; l) Containment of all construction-related fuel and oil within specially constructed bunds to ensure that fuel spillages are fully contained. Such bunds shall be roofed to exclude rainwater; m) Off-site disposal of construction/demolition waste and details of how it is proposed to manage excavated soil; n) Means to ensure that surface water run-off is controlled such that no silt or other pollutants enter local surface water sewers or drains.

A record of daily checks that the works are being undertaken in accordance with the Construction Management Plan shall be kept for inspection by the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of amenities, public health and safety.

21. Site development and building works shall be carried only out between the hours of 08.00 to 19.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, between 08.00 to 14.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and public holidays. Deviation from these times will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances where prior written approval has been received from the planning authority.

Reason : In order to safeguard the residential amenities of property in the vicinity.

22. a) A plan containing details for the management of waste (and, in particular, recyclable materials) within the development, including the provision of facilities for the storage, separation and collection of the waste and, in particular, recyclable materials [and for the ongoing operation of these facilities] for each housing unit shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development. Thereafter, the waste shall be managed in accordance with the agreed plan.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 90 of 93

______

b) This plan shall provide for screened communal bin stores, the locations and designs of which shall be included in the details to be submitted.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity, and to ensure the provision of adequate refuse storage.

23. Proposals for a name and numbering scheme and associated signage shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development. Thereafter, all estate and street signs, and house / apartment numbers, shall be provided in accordance with the agreed scheme. The proposed name(s) shall be based on local historical or topographical features, or other alternatives acceptable to the planning authority. No advertisements/marketing signage relating to the name(s) of the development shall be erected until the developer has obtained the planning authority’s written agreement to the proposed name(s).

Reason: In the interests of urban legibility and to ensure the use of locally appropriate placenames for new residential areas.

24. (a) The communal open spaces, including hard and soft landscaping, car parking areas and access ways, communal refuse/bin storage, and all areas not intended to be taken in charge by the local authority, shall be maintained by a legally constituted management company. (b) Details of the management company contract, and drawings/particulars describing the parts of the development for which the company would have responsibility, shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority before any of the residential units are made available for occupation.

Reason: To provide for the satisfactory future maintenance of this development in the interest of residential amenity.

25. Notwithstanding the provisions of Class 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, the placing of satellite television signal receiving antenna or other similar antennas or equipment on the front and side elevations of any building so as to be visible from the public road is prohibited, unless authorised by a further grant of planning permission.

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of property in the vicinity and the visual amenities of the area.

26. No additional development shall take place above roof parapet level, including lift motor enclosures, air handling equipment, storage tanks, ducts or other external plant, telecommunication aerials, antennas or equipment, unless authorised by a further grant of planning permission.

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 91 of 93

______

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of property in the vicinity and the visual amenities of the area.

27. Prior to commencement of development, the applicant or other person with an interest in the land to which the application relates shall enter into an agreement in writing with the planning authority in relation to the provision of social and affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 96 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, unless an exemption certificate shall have been applied for and been granted under section 97 of the Act, as amended. Where such an agreement is not reached within eight weeks from the date of this order, the matter in dispute (other than a matter to which section 97(7) applies) may be referred by the planning authority or any other prospective party to the agreement to the Board for determination.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and of the housing strategy in the development plan for the area.

28. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall lodge with the planning authority a cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company, or other security to secure the provision and satisfactory completion and maintenance until taken in charge by the local authority of roads, footpaths, watermains, drains, public open space and other services required in connection with the development, coupled with an agreement empowering the local authority to apply such security or part thereof to the satisfactory completion or maintenance of any part of the development. The form and amount of the security shall be as agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of agreement, shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory completion and maintenance of the development until taken in charge.

29. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution in respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting development in the area of the planning authority that is provided or intended to be provided by or on behalf of the authority in accordance with the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of development or in such phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the Scheme at the time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the Scheme shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to determine the proper application of the terms of the Scheme.

Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that a condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Development

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 92 of 93

______

Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Act be applied to the permission.

30. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution in respect of the Irish Rail Kildare Route Project in accordance with the terms of the Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme made by the planning authority under section 49 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of development or in such phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the Scheme at the time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the Scheme shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to determine the proper application of the terms of the Scheme.

Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that a condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme made under section 49 of the Act be applied to the permission.

Signed: ______Date: ______Robert Speer Inspectorate

PL06S. 236231 An Bord Pleanala Page 93 of 93